ANAND RAM vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6801/2024 ANAND RAM .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. and Ms. Taha Yasin, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rishab Sahu, Sr. PC with Mr. Gokul Sharma, GP for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 05.03.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal1 by way of OA 3808/2022 with two prayers. The first was for a direction to the respondents to regularise his services from 1995 when his juniors were regularised, with consequential benefits. The second was for grant of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. 2. The Tribunal has dismissed the OA on the ground of delay, merely adverting to prayer A which was for grant of regularisation. 3. Ms. Mansi Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6801/2024 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 17:06:14 that her client is not pressing prayer A and is only pressing prayer B. 4. Apropos prayer B, on the aspect of limitation, Ms. Gupta places reliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v Tarsem Singh2 We note that the Tribunal has extracted the paragraph from Tarsem Singh on which Ms. Gupta places reliance in para 4.4 of the impugned order. However, there is no finding of the Tribunal on prayer B of the OA either on delay or on merit. 5. Learned Counsel for both sides are agreeable to the OA being remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh regarding prayer B, both on delay and on merits. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by remanding the OA for consideration of the Tribunal by upholding the order of the Tribuna