Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ashok Kumar on 8 August, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~1 (SPL. DB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 889/2024
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.
versus
ASHOK KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shivani Verma, Adv. with
Mr. Ahsan Sanjar, Ms. Pragya Jaishwal,
Advs. for Mr. Kamlesh Kr Mishra, Adv.
respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER (ORAL)
% 08.08.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
REVIEW PET. 13/2025 & CM APPLs. 1395/2025, 1396/2025,
1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of respondent/non-
applicant by Ms. Shivani Verma.
2. At the outset, Ms. Manisha Tyagi, learned Counsel for the
review petitioner, presses the review petition only to the extent of
correction of date of 18 March 1986 as reflected in para 24 of
judgment dated 4 September 2024. The said para reads thus:
"24. Thus, in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court
directs the appellant to treat the respondent reinstated in service
from the date he was terminated from service i.e. 18.03.1986 and
his pay, allowances and seniority be fixed as per his eligibility and
he be paid 50% wages as due to him. This Court also directs the
appellant to pay respondent Rs.2.5 lacs towards litigation expenses
and compensation. The appellant is directed to comply with the
directions of this Court within four weeks."
3. Ms. Tyagi's contends, which is not disputed by Ms. Shivani
Verma, is that the date of 18 March 1986 should read as 20 July 1993.
4. Accordingly, para 24 of the judgment dated 4 September 2024
shall read thus:
"24. Thus, in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court
directs the appellant to treat the respondent reinstated in service
from the date he was terminated from service i.e. 20.07.1993 and
his pay, allowances and seniority be fixed as per his eligibility and
he be paid 50% wages as due to him. This Court also directs the
appellant to pay respondent Rs.2.5 lacs towards litigation expenses
and compensation. The appellant is directed to comply with the
directions of this Court within four weeks."
5. This order shall be treated as a corrigendum to the judgment
dated 4 September 2024.
6. At this point, Ms. Tyagi intervenes and submits that the
judgment dated 4 September 2024 passed by us does not note the fact
that the respondent had already received an amount of ₹ 2,15,374/-
under Section 17-B of the ID Act.
7. We find that this fact has specifically been noted in para 15 of
the judgment dated 4 September 2024 under challenge.
8. Accordingly, except for modifying the date in para 24 as
already noted hereinabove, we are not inclined to pass any further
orders in this review petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
9. Accompanying applications also stand disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.
AUGUST 8, 2025
dsn
