Delhi High Court
Usha Rani vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. on 27 September, 2021
$~34 (2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 27.09.2021
+ W.P.(C) 10944/2021 & CM No. 33738/2021
USHA RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Mudgil, Mr. Rakesh
Kumar & Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advs.
versus
GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs Avnish Ahlawat Standing
Counsel with Mrs Tania Ahlawat &
Ms Palak Rohmetra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Physical Hearing]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.(ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.08.2020 and
26.10.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, "the
Tribunal") in OA No.1113/2020 and in RA No.70/2020, filed in OA
No.1113/2020, respectively.
2. This matter seems to have chequered history.
2.1. The petitioner, in effect, had approached the Tribunal for the first
time, to seek implementation of the notification dated 24.09.2013, issued by
General Administration Department, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, which,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:01.10.2021
15:54:07
according to the petitioner, inter alia, provided the benefit of re-employment
up to 65 years of age, albeit, as part-time vocational teacher.
2.2. Furthermore, we are told that, the petitioner also sought post-
retirement pensionary benefit, based on the very same notification, which is
dated 29.04.2013.
2.3. The record shows that, the petitioner withdrew the aforementioned
action i.e., OA No.1113/2020, at the hearing held before the Tribunal, on
21.08.2020. At that stage, the petitioner, apparently, did not ask for liberty
to file an original application, with better particulars.
2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner, instead of approaching the Tribunal,
approached this Court by way of writ petition i.e., W.P.(C.) No.5930/2020.
2.5. When the aforesaid aspect was brought to the notice of the learned
single judge, counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the
aforementioned petition with liberty to file a review petition before the
Tribunal, against the order dated 21.08.2020.
2.6. Consequently, the learned single judge, on 02.09.2020, dismissed the
writ petition as withdrawn, with liberty, as noticed above.
2.7. The petitioner, as indicated in the hearing held before this Court on
02.09.2020, filed a review application with the Tribunal, in the
aforementioned OA. The said review application was numbered as RA
No.70/2020. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the Tribunal, dismissed the
review application, vide order dated 26.10.2020.
2.8. Resultantly, the petitioner has been left, practically, without a remedy.
2.9. It is in these circumstances that, the petitioner has approached this
Court, by way of the instant writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:01.10.2021
15:54:07
3. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the
respondents, cannot but accept that, the matter needs to be decided on
merits.
4. Given the foregoing, the impugned order dated 21.08.2020, passed in
OA No.1113/2020, as also the order dated 26.10.2020, passed in RA
No.70/2020, preferred in OA No.1113/2020, are set aside.
4.1. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal, for adjudication on merits.
5. The above-captioned writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed.
6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner says that, since notification
dated 24.09.2013 stands withdrawn, the petitioner may have to amend her
original application i.e., OA No.1113/2020. Leave, in that behalf, is granted.
In case, the petitioner was to move an application for amendment of the OA,
the Tribunal would allow the same, and, then, take the requisite next steps in
the matter.
7. The case papers shall stand consigned to the record.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021/nk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:01.10.2021
15:54:07
