Rahul Kumar v. New Delhi Municipal Council & ORS.
$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10.09.2025 + W.P.(C) 14008/2024 RAHUL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:
Mr.Ankit Singh Sinsinwar & Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advs.
versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr.Vaibhav Agnihotri, ASC/NDMC with Mr.Vidit Pratap Singh, Mr.Ankit Singh & Ms.Suruchi Khandelwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1.
This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, 3UL QFL SDO %HQFK 1HZ 'HOK K HUHL QDI in C.P. No. 656/2024 in O.A. No. 2679/2024, titled Rahul Kumar v. Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors., dismissing the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner herein, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent order dated 09.08.2024, on all the grounds including that have been taken by the petitioner in O.A. No. 2679/2024.
2.
To give a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the petitioner was appointed as a Casual Labour W.P.(C) 14008/2024
(Temporary Muster Roll) in the Horticulture Department of the respondents on 26.11.2009. He worked on the same with intermittent breaks and, on 04.05.2023, was appointed as Palika Sahayak (Udhyan) by the respondents. The terms of his appointment, inter alia, were that the petitioner shall work on the said post for a two-year probation period. Alleging certain misconduct by the petitioner, the respondents served a notice of termination, vide order dated 14.06.2024, on the petitioner under Rule 5(1)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 2679/2024. The learned Tribunal, by an ad interim Order dated 12.07.2024, stayed the operation of the order dated 14.06.2024 till the next date of hearing.
3.
It is the case of the respondents that the respondents were advised that the order dated 14.06.2024 was stigmatic in nature and it must withdraw the same and pass a fresh order. Accordingly, it withdrew the order dated 14.06.2024, vide order dated 07.08.2024, and passed a fresh termination order terminating the services of the petitioner on 09.08.2024.
4.
The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way of the above Contempt Petition, alleging that the respondents had, by withdrawing the order dated 14.06.2024 and passing a fresh termination order dated 09.08.2024, violated the interim Order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal.
5.
The learned Tribunal has dismissed the Contempt Petition, inter alia, observing therein that the order dated 09.08.2024, gives a fresh W.P.(C) 14008/2024