Rahul Kumar v. New Delhi Municipal Council Through Its Chairman & ORS.

$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 26.03.2025 + W.P.(C) 3789/2025 & CM APPL. 17672-73/2025 RAHUL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ankit Singh Sinsinwar & Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advs.

versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr.Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASC/NDMC with Ms.Suruchi Khandelwal, Adv.

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 19.02.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Original Application 4311/2024 (O.A) titled Rahul Kumar v. NDMC, whereby the learned Tribunal refused to grant an interim order of status quo ante as prayed for by the petitioner seeking his reinstatement in service, and listed the O.A. for hearing on 20.05.2025.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the previous rounds of litigation between the parties. By:RENUKA NEGI 18:54:07 W.P.(C) 3789/2025

3.

Without expressing any opinion on the same, we are of the considered view that as the O.A. filed by the petitioner is listed before the learned Tribunal on 20.05.2025, this petition is disposed of with a request to the learned Tribunal to hear the O.A. on the said date without granting any unwarranted adjournment to either of the parties. The learned counsel for the parties assure this Court that they would render full cooperation to the learned Tribunal for early disposal of the O.A. filed by the petitioner. The O.A. shall be disposed of by the learned Tribunal preferably within a month of its first listing before the learned Tribunal pursuant to this order.

4.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the Impugned Order or on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the same. All issues shall remain open to be adjudicated before the learned Tribunal. However, we take note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the pendency of W.P.(C) 14008/2024 before this Court, the learned Tribunal was apprehensive about finally hearing the O.A. We make it clear that the pendency of the said Writ Petition shall not act as a bar on the learned Tribunal to hear the O.A. finally and to decide the same on merits.

5.

The petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of. NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J MARCH 26, 2025/rv Click here to check corrigendum, if any By:RENUKA NEGI 18:54:07 W.P.(C) 3789/2025