Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Singh

Delhi HC8 Aug 2025LPA/504/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to file review petition; Section 14 Limitation Act benefit; pay scale of Garden Chaudhary; officiating/ad hoc duties; Municipal Corporation of Delhi; Industrial Tribunal awards; Single Judge decided 33 writ petitions on basis of one case.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file review petition before the learned Single Judge; benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period of pendency of the LPAs. ¶¶27-¶28

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Raj Singh — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~22 to 35 & 38 to 41

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

LPA 503/2025, CM APPL. 48879/2025, CM APPL. 48880/2025, CM APPL. 48881/2025, CM APPL. 48882/2025, CM APPL. 48883/2025 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus RAJBIR SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents 23 + LPA 504/2025, CM APPL. 48710/2025, CM APPL. 48711/2025, CM APPL. 48712/2025, CM APPL. 48713/2025, CM APPL. 48714/2025 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus RAJ SINGH .....Respondent 24 + LPA 505/2025, CM APPL. 48731/2025, CM APPL. 48732/2025, CM APPL. 48733/2025, CM APPL. 48734/2025, CM APPL. 48735/2025 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus BALAK RAM .....Respondent 25 + LPA 506/2025, CM APPL. 48741/2025, CM APPL. 48742/2025, CM APPL. 48743/2025, CM APPL. 48744/2025 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus SH. ASHOK KUMAR .....Respondent 26 + LPA 507/2025, CM APPL. 48747/2025, CM APPL. 48748/2025, CM APPL. 48749/2025, CM APPL. 48750/2025 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus JAIVINDER SINGH .....Respondent 27 + LPA 353/2025, CM APPL. 32871/2025, CM APPL. 32872/2025 MCD .....Appellant

¶4

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:25:38

¶5

	versus MOHAN LAL	.....Respondent
28
+	LPA 354/2025, CM APPL. 32885/2025, CM APPL.	32886/2025
	MCD	.....Appellant
	versus
	PREM SINGH ..	...Respondent
29
+	LPA 355/2025, CM APPL. 32896/2025, CM APPL.	32897/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus	.....Appellant
	NIRANJAN SINGH	.....Respondent
30
+	LPA 357/2025, CM APPL. 33008/2025, CM APPL.	33009/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus	.....Appellant
	SH NETAR PAL AND ANR.	.....Respondents
31
+	LPA 358/2025, CM APPL. 33033/2025, CM APPL. APPL. 33037/2025	33034/2025, CM
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI	.....Appellant
	versus
	DHEER SINGH	.....Respondent
32
+	LPA 376/2025, CM APPL. 35089/2025, CM APPL. APPL. 35093/2025	35090/2025, CM
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus	.....Appellant
	ASHOK KUMAR	.....Respondent
33
+	LPA 378/2025, CM APPL. 35121/2025, CM APPL.	35122/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus	.....Appellant
	SATPAL SINGH	.....Respondent

¶6

¶7

34 +	LPA 379/2025, CM APPL. 35128/2025, CM APPL. 35129/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus
	SH RAM KISHAN .....Respondent
35
+	LPA 380/2025, CM APPL. 35132/2025, CM APPL. 35133/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus
	SATISH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents
38
+	LPA 509/2025, CM APPL. 48782/2025, CM APPL. 48783/2025, CM APPL. 48784/2025, CM APPL. 48785/2025, CM APPL. 48786/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus
	MUNISH CHAND & ANR. .....Respondents
39
+	LPA 510/2025, CM APPL. 48806/2025, CM APPL. 48807/2025, CM APPL. 48808/2025, CM APPL. 48809/2025, CM APPL. 48810/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant
	versus
	JAI PAL SINGH .....Respondent
40
+	LPA 511/2025, CM APPL. 48832/2025, CM APPL. 48833/2025, CM APPL. 48834/2025, CM APPL. 48835/2025, CM APPL. 48836/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus SIROMAN SINGH .....Respondent
41
+	LPA 512/2025, CM APPL. 48845/2025, CM APPL. 48846/2025, CM APPL. 48847/2025, CM APPL. 48848/2025, CM APPL. 48849/2025
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Appellant versus

¶8

This is a digitally signed order.

¶9

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:25:38

¶10

RAJENDER SINGH

¶11

.....Respondent

¶12

Memo of appearance

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: Dr. Divya Swamy, Standing Counsel.

¶14

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Varun Prasad and Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advs. in Item Nos.27-35.

¶15

CORAM:

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶17

O R D E R % 08.08.2025

¶18

The present appeals have been filed by the appellant for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 2990/2017 and other connected matters, whereby the learned Single Judge upheld the Awards passed by learned Industrial Tribunal and held that the respondent(s) were entitled for the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary for the period for which they performed the said duties in officiating/ ad hoc position.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Ors. [(2019) 18 SCC 301], and more particularly to paragraph 91 of the said judgment, submits that even if the respondent(s) were performing duties of a Garden Chaudhary, this solely does not make them entitle for the pay scale of Garden Chaudhary since the rules of recruitment and educational qualification for the post of Mali and Garden Chaudhary are completely different.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant then, while drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph no.22 of the impugned judgement, further states that

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:25:38

¶23

the learned Single Judge has decided all the 33 writ petitions on the basis of the facts of one case, even though the facts in each case were distinct, and therefore, the law could not have been applied across the board in all the 33 writ petitions.

¶24

A perusal of the impugned judgment prima facie reflects that the Appellant/ Municipal Corporation of Delhi has itself not put forth the facts of each case in their arguments before the learned Single Judge.

¶25

In the wake of the same, this Court gave a suggestion to the learned counsel for the appellant that until and unless the factual foundation is not laid down in every case before the learned Single Judge and the same has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge, the present LPAs cannot be considered.

¶26

In response, learned counsel for the appellant seeks liberty to withdraw the present LPAs with liberty to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge.

¶27

Without giving any observation on the merits of the case, leave and liberty as prayed for is granted. The present LPAs are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to take remedies in accordance with law.

¶28

Needless to state that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be given to the appellant while commuting the time taken since filing of the present LPAs till the date of disposal.

¶29

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

¶30

AUGUST 8, 2025/ bh SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:25:38

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munish Grover Vs Container Corporation India Ltd. and Ors.

The Director Centre for Cultural Resources and Training Vs Anil Kohli & Anr.

J.P. Syal & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Ashok Kumar

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Dheer Singh

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Sh Ram Kishan