Pooja Sharma vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

MA No. 5052/2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the accompanying Review Application against the order dated 27.07.2026. The applicant submits that the delay occurred due to the recent knowledge of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GNCTD v. Aditi Kumari and the time taken in obtaining the order and preparing the Review Application. It is contended that the delay is neither wilful nor deliberate and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the same is condoned. In view of the reasons stated, the MA is allowed and the delay of 33 days in filing the Review Application is condoned.

The present Review Application has been filed seeking review and recall of the order dated 27.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2732/2026, whereby the applicant’s claim for pay parity with regular TGT (English) teachers was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the review applicant submits that the applicant has been working as a Guest Teacher (TGT-English) since 27.10.2021 and discharging duties identical to those of regular teachers. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Aditi Kumari v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., O.A. No. 1398/2018, decided on 17.09.2024, as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 22.08.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 4728/2025 and stated to have been subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel further contends that the applicant had specifically pleaded in Ground B of the Original Application that she was working against a sanctioned post. Reliance is also placed upon the affidavit dated 06.04.2023 filed in Social Jurist, A Lawyers Group v. Shri Dharmender Sharma & Ors., Cont. Cas. (C) No. 1133/2016. It is, therefore, contended that the distinction drawn between the applicant’s case and Aditi Kumari (supra) warrants review of the order under challenge.

We have considered the submissions and perused the record. The order dated 27.07.2026 specifically considered the decision in Aditi Kumari (supra), the nature and terms of the applicant’s engagement, and the absence of averments establishing her engagement against a sanctioned post through a regular selection process. The contention regarding the sanctioned post and the reliance placed upon the aforesaid affidavit do not establish any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

The subsequent affirmation of the judgment in Aditi Kumari (supra), as asserted by learned counsel, also does not, by itself, constitute a ground for review. The present application substantially seeks reconsideration of findings already recorded, which is beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

In view of the above, no ground for review or recall of the order dated 27.07.2026 is made out. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.