Yateendra Kumar v. Union of India, through Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC9 May 2025W.P.(C)/9307/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Veterinary doctors' retirement/superannuation age (60 vs 65 years); parity with Ayush and Allopathic doctors; NDMC; Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench; O.A. Nos. 1729/2021, 2298/2018, 2289/2018, 3711/2018; W.P.(C) 8704/2017; Civil Appeal Nos. 4578/2021 and 4758/2021; set aside of impugned Tribunal order; restoration of OA to Tribunal for fresh adjudication; expedited decision within three months; representations unanswered; petitioner superannuated at 60.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal Order dated 23.08.2021 set aside; O.A. No. 1729/2021 restored to the Tribunal; parties to appear on 27th May, 2025; Tribunal requested to expedite hearing and decide the OA preferably within three months of its first listing; writ petition and pending application disposed of in the above terms. ¶¶41

Yateendra Kumar Vs Union of India, through Secretary & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Tribunal order dated 23.08.2021 disposing of O.A. No. 1729/2021 in terms of the Tribunal's Order dated 30.07.2018 could be sustained, given that the Tribunal proceeded on the mistaken premise that O.A. No. 2298/2018 had been dismissed (when it was disposed of with directions) and failed to appreciate intervening events, including the dismissal of W.P.(C) 8704/2017 (Order dated 15.11.2018) and of Civil Appeal No. 4578/2021 (Judgment dated 03.08.2021). +1 more

¶¶39

Court's answer

The impugned order cannot be sustained: the Tribunal committed a first mistake in proceeding on the basis that O.A. No. 2298/2018 had been dismissed, whereas it was in fact disposed of with directions; and it further failed to appreciate intervening events (inter alia, the dismissal of W.P.(C) 8704/2017 vide Order dated 15.11.2018 and of Civil Appeal No. 4578/2021 vide Judgment dated 03.08.2021).

¶¶40

Ratio / Principle

It was for the learned Tribunal to now decide the petitioner's O.A. on its own merits and keeping in view the judgment in W.P.(C) 8704/2017 and the Supreme Court judgment in the Civil Appeal.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

The impugned order is set aside and O.A. No. 1729/2021 is restored back to its original number before the learned Tribunal; parties to appear before the Tribunal on 27th May, 2025.ratio¶¶41
This Court did not examine the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner in O.A. 1729/2021; the Tribunal shall adjudicate the same on its own merits, with hearing expedited and the OA to be decided preferably within three months of its first listing.ratio¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla, J., oral; bench including Renu Bhatnagar, J.), decision dated 09.05.2025, W.P.(C) 9307/2021 (Yateendra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.): petition disposed of with the impugned Order dated 23.08.2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 1729/2021 SET ASIDE, whereby the Tribunal had disposed of the petitioner-veterinary doctor's OA (claiming parity with Ayush and Allopathic doctors for enhancement of retirement age to 65 years) merely in terms of the Tribunal's Order dated 30.07.2018 in O.A. No. 2298/2018. Held (ratio): (i) the Tribunal wrongly proceeded on the basis that O.A. No. 2298/2018 had been dismissed, when it had in fact been disposed of leaving applicants open to make representations, with any decision dependent on the outcome of NDMC's W.P.(C) 8704/2017 then pending before this Court; and (ii) the Tribunal failed to appreciate intervening events - viz., the dismissal of W.P.(C) 8704/2017 vide Order dated 15.11.2018 directing NDMC to pay respondent-doctors continuing beyond 60 years punctually till superannuation at 65 years (without administrative duties), and the dismissal of NDMC's Civil Appeal No. 4578/2021 by the Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 03.08.2021 - hence the impugned order could not be sustained. O.A. No. 1729/2021 restored back to its original number before the Tribunal; parties to appear on 27th May, 2025; Tribunal requested to expedite hearing and decide the OA preferably within three months of first listing. This Court expressly did NOT examine the merits of the petitioner's claim; adjudication left wholly to the Tribunal on its own merits.

¶1

$~9

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 09.05.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 9307/2021 AND CM APPL. 28930/2021

¶5

YATEENDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. K. Venkatraman and Mr. Avinash, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, Adv. for R-1 and 2/UOI.

¶11

Mr. S. K. Mishra and Mr. Saarthak Bansal, Advs. for R-3 and 4.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶14

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1729/2021, titled Yateendra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors, disposing of the above OA filed by the petitioner herein with the following direction:

¶16

“5. Assuming that the similar facility has been extended by NDMC to medical doctors,

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

W.P.(C) 9307/2021 Page 1 of 5

¶19

Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:1 5.05.2025 12:50:33

¶20

one cannot expect the same pattern for the veterinary doctors. As of now, the rules provide for age of superannuation as 6o years. This very issue fell for consideration before this Tribunal in O.A. No.2289/2018 decided on 30.07.2018. The O.A. was dismissed. That, in turn, was followed in O.A. No.3711/2018 decided on 12.10.2018. We do not find any differentiating factor in this case.”

¶21

From the perusal of the above extracts of the impugned order, it would be evident that the learned Tribunal has relied upon its Order dated 30.07.2018 passed in O.A. No. 2298/2018, which in turn had disposed of the said O.A. by leaving it open to the petitioners therein to make a representation to the employer and a direction to the concerned Corporation to take a decision on such representation depending upon the outcome of the W.P.(C) 8704/2017 filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, which was then pending before this Court. We quote the final direction in the order dated 30.07.2018, as under:-

¶22

“8. We, therefore, dispose of the O.A leaving it open to the applicants to make representations to their employer ventilating their grievances, and the concerned Corporation in turn shall take decision depending upon the outcome of the Writ Petition (C) No. 8704/2017 on the file of the Delhi High Court.

¶23

It is needless to mention that the retirement of the applicants, at this stage, would be subject to the outcome of the steps indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶24

Therefore, the first mistake that the Tribunal commits in the Impugned Order is that it proceeds on the basis that O.A. No. 2298/2018 had been dismissed by it; the said O.A. was, in fact,

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

W.P.(C) 9307/2021 Page 2 of 5

¶27

Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:1 5.05.2025 12:50:33

¶28

disposed of with the above quoted directions.

¶29

The learned Tribunal, while passing the Impugned Order dated 23.08.2021, also failed to appreciate that in the meantime, W.P.(C) 8704/2017 had been dismissed by this Court vide the Order dated 15.11.2018 with the following directions:

¶30

“11. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, we direct the NDMC to make payment of the arrears of salary and allowances to those of the respondent-doctors, who continued to serve with the NDMC even after attaining the age of 60 years and who are still in employment with NDMC, within four weeks from today and to continue to make payment of their salary and other allowances in future punctually till they superannuate at the age of 65 years. However, it is made clear that respondents shall not be assigned any administrative duties in terms of the Governmental decision.”

¶31

The above Order dated 15.11.2018 was challenged by the NDMC before the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 4578/2021, which had also been dismissed vide Judgment dated 03.08.2021.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with the Order dated 30.07.2018 passed in O.A. 2289/2018, the petitioner had made representations to the respondent no. 3 on 30.07.2021 and 10.08.2021, however, received no response thereto.

¶33

Aggrieved of the representations not being responded by the

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

3 of 5

¶36

W.P.(C) 9307/2021 Page

¶37

Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:1 5.05.2025 12:50:33

¶38

respondent no. 3, and claiming parity with Ayush and Allopathic doctors with respect to age of retirement being enhanced to 65 years, the petitioner had filed the O.A. No. 1729/2021.

¶39

The learned Tribunal, therefore, in ignorance of the events which had taken place in between the passing of the Order dated 30.07.2018 in O.A. 2289/2018 and filing of the O.A. No. 1729/2021 by the petitioner herein, again disposed of the O.A. No. 1729/2021 in terms of the Order dated 30.07.2018.

¶40

We are of the opinion that for the abovesaid reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It was for the learned Tribunal to now decide the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein on its own merits and keeping in view the Judgment dated 15.11.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 8704/2017 and the Judgment dated 03.08.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4758/2021.

¶41

Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside. The O.A. No. 1729/2021 is restored back to its original number before the learned Tribunal.

¶42

The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 27^th May, 2025.

¶43

As the dispute has been pending adjudication for a long period of time and in the meantime the petitioner has also superannuated, taking the age of superannuation to be 60 years, the learned Tribunal is, therefore, requested to expedite the hearing of the O.A. and decide

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

W.P.(C) 9307/2021 Page 4 of 5

¶46

Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:1 5.05.2025 12:50:33

¶47

the same on merits, preferably within a period of three months of its first listing. We, however, make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner herein in O.A. 1729/2021 and the learned Tribunal shall adjudicate the same on its own merits.

¶48

The petition along with pending application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶49

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶50

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶51

MAY 9, 2025 p/ kz/ik

¶52

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

W.P.(C) 9307/2021 Page 5 of 5

¶55

Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Da te:1 5.05.2025 12:50:33

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 23.08.2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1729/2021 titled 'Yateendra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors', disposing of the petitioner's OA with a direction premised on the Tribunal's earlier Orders of 30.07.2018 (O.A. No. 2298/2018) and 12.10.2018 (O.A. No. 3711/2018).¶¶15
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi · 23.08.2021
Prior proceeding
Tribunal's Order dated 30.07.2018 in O.A. No. 2298/2018, relied upon in the impugned order, had disposed of that OA leaving applicants free to make representations to their employer, with the Corporation to decide depending on the outcome of NDMC's W.P.(C) 8704/2017 then pending before the Delhi High Court.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Per the Tribunal's own (quoted) account reproduced in the impugned order, the same issue had been considered in O.A. No.2289/2018 decided on 30.07.2018 (which the Tribunal described as dismissed) and was followed in O.A. No.3711/2018 decided on 12.10.2018.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
W.P.(C) 8704/2017 filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 15.11.2018, directing NDMC to pay arrears of salary and allowances to respondent-doctors who continued serving after attaining 60 years, to pay punctually till they superannuate at 65 years, without assignment of administrative duties.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
NDMC challenged the Order dated 15.11.2018 before the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 4578/2021, which was dismissed vide Judgment dated 03.08.2021.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
In compliance with the Order dated 30.07.2018 in O.A. 2289/2018, the petitioner made representations to respondent no. 3 on 30.07.2021 and 10.08.2021 but received no response.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by non-response and claiming parity with Ayush and Allopathic doctors on retirement age enhanced to 65 years, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1729/2021.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Despite the intervening events between the Order dated 30.07.2018 in O.A. 2289/2018 and the filing of O.A. No. 1729/2021 (including the dismissal of W.P.(C) 8704/2017 on 15.11.2018 and of Civil Appeal No. 4578/2021 on 03.08.2021), the Tribunal again disposed of O.A. No. 1729/2021 in terms of the Order dated 30.07.2018.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
By the time of this writ petition the petitioner had already superannuated, taking the age of superannuation to be 60 years.¶¶43

Yateendra Kumar v. Union of India, through Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yateendra Kumar v. Union of India, through Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nikon Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -04, Delhi & Ors.

Sqn Ldr Swati Prakash Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Vinod Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Ajay Prakash Mishra Vs the Registrar Cooperative Societies through Assistant Registrar & Anr.

Maanoj Agarwala Vs Idbi Bank

Loconav India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi and Anr.

Sandeep Chopra Vs Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Rajkumar Sukhdevsinhji & Anr. Vs Idbi Bank

Ashok Kumar Gupta (Since Deceased) through His Lrs. Vs Suresh Chand Gupta (Since Deceased) through His Lrs.

Sh. Arvind Sagar Vs Smt. Kavita @ Seema

Rajiv Kumar Pandey Vs Comptroller and Auditor General of India

Lokesh Prabhakar Vs Archna Prabhakar

Pushpender Vs Sonia Choudhary

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs Saurabh Tiwari