AJAY KUMAR SHARMA vs THE COMMISSIONER SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 22 November 2024 Pronounced on: 28 May 2025 + WP (C) 1823/2021 AJAY KUMAR SHARMA ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohinder J S Rupal, Advocate versus THE COMMISSIONER, SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Standing Counsel for MCD + WP (C) 6590/2021 & CM APPL. 20657/2021 S.K. CHAUHAN … Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjiv K. Jha & Mr. Sachin Bhatt, Advs versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION...Respondents Through: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Standing Counsel for MCD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA JUDGMENT % 28.05.2025 Signature Not Verified WP(C) 1823/2021 & WP(C) 6590/2021 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 91 KUMAR Signing Date:28.05.2025 14:21:55 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. These writ petitions involve a similar challenge, and were argued together. They are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment. WP (C) 1823/2021 [Ajay Kumar Sharma v Commissioner, SDMC & anr] The lis 2. The petitioner Ajay Kumar Sharma approached the Central Administrative Tribunal1 by way of OA 238/2020, challenging Office Orders dated 13 September 2019 and 13 December 2019 issued by the office of the Additional Commissioner (Engg.), South Delhi Municipal Corporation2. By the first Office Order dated 13 September 2019, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service under FR 56(j)3 read with Rule 48(1)(b)4 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 19725. The representation preferred by the petitioner seeking review of the said decision was rejected by the second Office Order 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter 2 “the SDMC”, hereinafter 3 (j) The Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the