discontinued along with that of the respondent. She sought to submit that the effort, of the said workman (Anish Kumar) to challenge his termination, had failed, and this Court, being a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, would be bound to follow the said decision. With respect, I am unable to agree with the said submission. In the first place, Delhi Jal Board v. Anish Kumar (supra) was a judgment in a second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising out of an original Civil Suit, and a reading of the said decision reveals that it does not deal, even obliquely, with the issue of retrenchment, or the availability, to the respondent/workman therein, of the benefit of Section 25F of the ID Act. Secondly, the said decision proceeds on an admission, by the petitioner, therein, that his appointment was on a temporary basis. In fact, it is further noted, in para 10 of the said decision, that “it was also not the case of the plaintiff that he had been appointed against a vacant post”, in view whereof the learned Single Judge, while deciding the said case, accepted the submission, of the Delhi Jal Board before, that the words “against a vacant post”, as figuring in the posting order, was a typographical error. No such disclaimer, it may be noted, has been advanced by the petitioner in the present case. Thirdly, it does not appear, from a reading of the said decision, that, as in the present case, there was an admission, on the part of the Delhi Jal Board, the nature of the service being rendered by the workman was “regular” in nature. In view of the said admission, in the present case – as contained in Office Order dated 10th September, 1990 (Ex. MW-1/2) and the communication, dated
