Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

july 2025

Delhi High Court · 2025-07-22

SH RAJ KUMAR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation / case number
W.P.(C)-15922/2022 2025:DHC:5928-DB
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
SH RAJ KUMAR
Respondent
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22.07.2025 + W.P.(C) 15922/2022 SH RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei, Advs. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Gupta, SC for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 6/2013, titled Shri Raj Kumar v. The Commissioner (North), NDMC & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein in the following terms: “11. Since the applicant has retired from service, we are of the view that the respondents cannot be permitted to levy interest. Therefore, we partly allow the OA setting aside that portion of the show cause Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN W.P.(C) 15922/2022 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:28.07.2025 18:38:16 notice which proposed to levy 10% interest on the applicant. It is accordingly directed that the amount payable by him shall be worked out after duly deducting the same, the respondents shall release amount payable to him, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner, who had joined the services of the respondent as a Garden Chaudhary on daily wages on 06.11.1978, pursuant to an Industrial Award dated 10.07.2000, was regularized in service with effect from 02.07.1984. The said Award was challenged by the respondent before this Court, but the challenge was unsuccessful. 3. Sub

SH RAJ KUMAR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI · Niyam