Ravi Gupta vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi Through The Chief Secretary Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.

Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)

The applicant is working as a Guest Teacher in the capacity of TGT Mathematics and by way of the present OA the applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking main relief(s) [As extracted from the OA] reads as:

“(i)Declare that the impugned action on the part of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the applicant on the post of TGT Mathematics, w.e.f. from his initial date of appointment is illegal, unjustified, unconstitutional and violative of article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

(ii) Direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant on the post of TGT Mathematics w.e.f. the initial date of his appointment with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work etc.

(iii) Direct the respondents to pay the salary to the applicant in regular pay scale as being paid to his permanent/regular counterparts in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

(iv) Pay the arrears of salary along with interest thereupon to be calculated at 18% per annum.”

The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is working as a Guest Teacher in the capacity TGT Mathematics since 20.03.2014. His engagement was made keeping in view his eligibility for the post under reference and against the sanctioned post by the competent authority. He further submits that even the respondents in the year 2017 had introduced a bill titled "Regularisation of service of Guest Teachers Bill 2017" in the Delhi Legislative Assembly. However, the Bill could not become an enactment. In the said Bill, the respondents had given a detailed justification for introducing the Bill and they had also emphasized the need for the regularization of the applicant and similarly placed Guest Teacher.

Issue notice. Mr. Rohit Bhagat, the learned proxy counsel for the respondents appears on advance service, accepts notice and service of notice to the respondents is waived off.

Mr. Shubham Bahl, the learned proxy counsel submits that in identical OA No.1194/2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has directed to consider the pending representation and requests that similar directions may also be issued in this matter. Mr. Shubham Bahl, the learned proxy counsel for the applicant after arguing for some time submits that the applicant would be satisfied if the present if direction is issued to the respondents to decide the pending representation dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) in a time bound manner with appropriate interim direction in his favour.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. We are of the considered view that the limited request being made on behalf of the applicant through their learned counsel today, if accepted, is not likely to cause any prejudice to the respondents.

In view of the above submissions, the present O.A. is disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) of the applicant in accordance with law and take a decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Respondents are directed that till issuance of such order(s), they shall not disengage the applicant from his present engagement as Guest Teachers unless regularly selected candidates for the sanctioned posts are available to join.

Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and respondents are free to decide pending representation in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

In view whereof, the present OA stands disposed of at admission stage itself in above indicated terms.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereof, pending M.A., if any, also stands closed.