Mr. Pradeep Kumar vs Arindam Modak & Anr.

Vide order dated 14.10.2026 in the CP, it is recorded that the CP has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same stands closed. Notices are discharged.

By way of the present MA, the respondents in the OA have prayed for vacation of the interim order dated 29.05.2026 passed by this Tribunal in the captioned OA, being OA No. 2925/2026. Vide the said interim order, the respondents were directed to continue the applicant on the post on which he had been working on contractual basis and to allow him to perform his assigned duties till the next date of hearing. The respondents were also accorded liberty to approach this Tribunal for seeking vacation/modification of the interim order after filing their counter reply.

Aggrieved by the interim order dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure R-2), the respondents approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing W.P.(C) No. 11552/2026. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 12.08.2026, disposed of the said Writ Petition with a request to this Tribunal to take up MA No. 3694/2026 making it clear that while passing the said order, the Hon’ble High Court has not pronounced in any manner on the merit of the dispute or on the merit of the application for modification/vacation, which would be decided on its own merits.

It is not in dispute that the respondents have complied with the interim directions issued by this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the OA is also taken up for consideration and disposal. Learned counsel for the original applicant, however, has an objection to the OA being taken up for consideration and disposal at this stage. He submits that he is yet to file a rejoinder to the counter reply filed by the respondents and accordingly seeks some time to enable the applicant to file the same.

It is not in dispute that, vide order dated 29.05.2026, the respondents were accorded six weeks’ time to file their counter reply, and the applicant was granted liberty to file a rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter. The counter reply to the OA was filed on 04.08.2026, and an additional affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 was filed on 24.08.2026. More than two months have elapsed since then; however, the applicant has chosen not to file a rejoinder.

Rule 32 of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, 1993, reads as under:

As is apparent from the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules of Practice, even in the absence of a rejoinder, we find that the OA is also ready for hearing. We may further record that learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are ready to continue the applicant till 19.10.2026. However, it may be clarified that such continuation shall not accrue any equitable right to the applicant to seek any additional relief, particularly in view of the fact that the National Dental Commission came into existence on 19.03.2026. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the enactment in respect of the National Dental Commission of India was passed by Parliament and the assent of the President was accorded on 11.08.2023. Moreover, as is apparent, the Dental Council of India, vide its office order dated 16.03.2026, extended the contractual employment of the applicant from 20.04.2026 to 19.10.2026, despite being aware that the Dental Council of India was likely not to remain in existence during the said period. It is also apparent that the substantial relief sought by the applicant is only to permit him to resume his duties and continue in service pursuant to the office order dated 16.03.2026, whereby his contract was extended till 19.10.2026.

We are of the considered view that the OA does not require to be adjourned merely to enable the applicant to file a rejoinder. With regard to the relief sought in para 8.1, keeping in view the interim order passed by this Tribunal, the applicant has been continued in service and is continuing as of today. The respondents have also agreed to continue him till 19.10.2026. We find that, with the passage of time, the OA itself has become infructuous and, accordingly, deserves to be disposed of as such. However, we clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the continuation of the applicant pursuant to the office order dated 16.03.2026 issued by the Dental Council of India. Accordingly, the OA and the MA both stand disposed of. No costs.