Indian Council Of Medical Research & ANR. v. Shri Uday Kumar Singh & ORS.

$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 01.08.2024 + W.P.(C) 15541/2023 INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Mr. Shashwat Sharma, Advocates.

versus SHRI UDAY KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Ashok Chakraborty with Mr.

Amarendra Pratap Singh and Ms.

Arpa Chakraborty, for R-1.

Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Mr. S.C. Ojha and Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, Advocates for R-2 & R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) W.P.(C) 15541/2023 & CM APPL. 62238/2023 (stay) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer: "a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 in O.A. No. 2302 of 2022, passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi."

W.P.(C) 15541/2023 Page 1 of 3 pages

2.

The respondent, before the learned Tribunal by way of filing Original Application (O.A.) No.2302/2022, had sought regularization of services from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 10.06.1999 with the petitioners herein which relief the respondent, stated to, is not entitled to in view of the fact that regularization is not a matter of right and regularisation is a decision falling purely under the administrative domain of employer, and the Courts have limited intervention on this aspect in terms of the settled law. 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that even otherwise any O.A. filed before the Learned Tribunal has to first pass the mandatory maintainability test of the limitation as stipulated under section 21 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and an O.A. cannot be heard on merits unless the aspect of limitation has been decided by the Learned Tribunal in compliance of the terms as stipulated under section 21 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

4.

It is not in dispute that the respondent has not filed the application seeking condonation of delay before the learned Tribunal, however, the respondent seeks regularization in service which, in our considered opinion, is a continuous cause of action, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in the cases of Ramesh Chand Sharma vs Udham Singh Kamal and Others, (1999) 8 SCC 304 and Union of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Anr., Civil Appeal No(s) 3967/20218 are of no help to the petitioners.

5.

Since the O.A. is pending before the learned Tribunal for final W.P.(C) 15541/2023 Page 2 of 3 pages

adjudication on merits, we find no ground in the present petition. 6.

Accordingly, the present petition as well as pending applications are dismissed.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (GIRISH KATHPALIA) JUDGE AUGUST 1, 2024/ry W.P.(C) 15541/2023 Page 3 of 3 pages