AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
This writ petition assails order dated 30 April 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in CP 592/2025 in OA 1469/2015.
It is not necessary, for the purpose of the present order, to refer, in detail, to the intricacies of the controversy. Suffice it, therefore, to note that the petitioners sought regularisation in the post held by them, relying, inter alia on the judgments of the Supreme Court and of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India2, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India3, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad4, Dharam Singh v. State of UP5, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand6, Pawan Kumar v. Union of India7, Pawan Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi8 and New Delhi Municipal Council v. Kalpana Sharma9 and the decisions which adopted the same view thereafter.
The OA filed by the petitioners was disposed of, by the Tribunal, by judgment dated 7 March 2025, the operative paragraph of which read thus:
“25.Accordingly, the impugned action of the respondents in denying consideration for regularization is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the department to reconsider the applicants' cases in light of the Jaggo (supra) and other relevant precedents. The respondents are directed to undertake a fair and objective evaluation of the applicants' eligibility for regularization, keeping in view their long-standing service, experience, and the recommendations of the internal committees. A reasoned decision shall be taken and communicated to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the present Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.”
Purportedly by way of compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal, the respondents passed an order on 13 October 2025. The directions of the Tribunal were reproduced in extenso. Thereafter, the order refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi10, and the fact that some of the principles in the said decision were later reiterated in Jaggo and other decisions.
Rightly or wrongly, the order proceeds, in paragraph 5, to hold that the petitioners would not be entitled to regularisation, and provides nine reasons therefor.
Inasmuch as the decision in Jaggo has been noted in the aforesaid order, it cannot be said that the respondents acted in contumacious and wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal on 7 March 2025.
This is the view that the Tribunal has adopted in the impugned order, by which the Tribunal has declined to exercise contempt jurisdiction in the matter.
We do not find any error in the view adopted by the Tribunal. Perhaps, the correct course of action for the petitioners would have been to challenge the order dated 13 October 2025, instead of moving the Tribunal in contempt. The limits of contempt jurisdiction are well recognised.
While, therefore, we declined to interfere in the present matter, we reserve liberty with the petitioners to move the Tribunal by way of appropriate proceedings, if so advised, challenging the order dated 13 October 2025.
In the event that the Tribunal is so moved, it would be open to the petitioners to seek expedited disposal of the OA. If any such request is made, we are sanguine that the Tribunal would examine the request with the seriousness it deserves.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.