Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Ram Kumar Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Delhi HC
2026
Ram Kumar Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.Ram Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.

Dismissed¶21

Ram Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/17590/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (W.P.(C) 17590/2025 & CM APPL. 72668/2025), High Court of Delhi, decided 16.01.2026 by Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ., dismissed. Petitioner Ram Kumar, a DTC Driver retired at age 55, sought extension of service despite the DTC Medical Board's opinion (examinations of 05.10.2023 and 12.10.2023) of restricted movement of the right elbow rendering him unfit to drive a public transport vehicle; the CAT had dismissed his O.A. No. 1939/2024 on 16.07.2025. Held: exercise of CMD/MD discretion for re-examination by an independent medical board in another employee's case is not a precedent; extension of service is not a matter of right; a hospital OPD 'fit for duty' certificate is not a certificate of fitness to drive public transport vehicles. Key terms: extension of service, superannuation age 55, DTC Medical Board, independent medical board, GNCTD Health & Family Welfare, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital OPD card, Central Administrative Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Discretion exercised by DTC in a particular case cannot be cited as a precedent to direct DTC to universally adopt such practice. ¶16

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, having retired as a DTC Driver at the age of 55 after the DTC Medical Board found him unfit for extension, can claim extension of service as a matter of right. +2 more

Court's answer

The Petitioner, having admittedly completed his normal service and retired, cannot be allowed extension of service as a matter of right, particularly when the Medical Board has declared that he is not fit to drive a public transport vehicle.

Ratio / Principle

Discretion exercised by DTC in a particular case cannot be cited as a precedent to direct DTC to universally adopt such practice.

Key takeaways

Although the OPD Card declares the Petitioner fit for duty, he has not been certified fit to drive a public transport vehicle or to perform a duty of that nature.ratio¶19
This Court finds no ground to entertain the present writ petition.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.), Order dated 16.01.2026 in W.P.(C) 17590/2025 (Ram Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.): A DTC Driver who retired at 55 after the DTC Medical Board twice found him unfit for extension of service (opinion of 'Restricted movement Right Elbow Joint'), and whose O.A. No. 1939/2024 against the rejection orders was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 16.07.2025, challenged the denial of extension in service. The Bench held that (i) discretionary re-examination by an independent medical board granted to another employee cannot be cited as a precedent requiring universal adoption by DTC; (ii) an employee who has completed normal service cannot claim extension as a matter of right when the Medical Board has declared him not fit to drive a public transport vehicle; and (iii) a GTB Hospital OPD certification of 'fit for duty' does not certify fitness to drive a public transport vehicle or perform duties of that nature. Finding no ground to entertain the petition, the writ petition and pending application (CM APPL. 72668/2025) were dismissed.

A

$~20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 17590/2025 & CM APPL. 72668/2025 RAM KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Adv. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026

Through the present writ petition, the Petitioner assails correctness of orders dated 04.12.2020, 25.01.2024, 06.02.2024, passed by the Delhi Transport Corporation. The petitioner also assails the order dated 16.07.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1939/2024, whereby the O.A. filed by the Petitioner against the orders dated 06.02.2024 and 25.01.2024 has been dismissed.

On attaining the age of 55 years, the Petitioner retired from his position as a Driver with DTC. He is essentially aggrieved by rejection of his request for extension in service on the basis of the opinion of the DTC Medical Board.

The learned counsel representing the Petitioner contends that Chairman-cum-Managing Director/ Managing Director of the DTC has discretion to get an employee re-examined through an independent medical board to be constituted by Secretary, Health & family Welfare, GNCTD.

He submits that in case of another similarly situated employee, such discretion was exercised, but in the case of the Petitioner, the aforesaid procedure was not adopted.

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 19/01/2026 at 13:11:13

This Court has examined the matter. It is seen that the Petitioner was initially examined by the DTC Medical Board on 05.10.2023. The Petitioner was re-examined by the DTC Medical Board on 12.10.2023 and it was found that the Petitioner is not fit to be granted extension as he was opined to have “Restricted movement Right Elbow Joint”.

In any case, the discretion exercised by DTC in a particular case cannot be cited as a precedent to direct DTC to universally adopt such practice.

Admittedly, the Petitioner has completed his normal service and retired. He cannot be allowed to seek extension of his service as a matter of right, particularly when the Medical Board has declared that he is not fit to drive a public transport vehicle.

The counsel representing the Petitioner submits that Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, has declared that the Petitioner is fit.

This Court has examined the aforesaid OPD Card where although the Petitioner has been declared fit for duty, however, it has not been certified that he is found fit to drive a public transport vehicle or to perform a duty of this nature.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the present writ petition along with the pending application is dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

JANUARY 16, 2026/ ‘KDK’

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 19/01/2026 at 13:11:13

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Petitioner, having retired as a DTC Driver at the age of 55 after the DTC Medical Board found him unfit for extension, can claim extension of service as a matter of right.¶10
The court held
The Petitioner, having admittedly completed his normal service and retired, cannot be allowed extension of service as a matter of right, particularly when the Medical Board has declared that he is not fit to drive a public transport vehicle.ratio¶17
2.
Whether the Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Managing Director of DTC ought to have exercised his discretion to have the Petitioner re-examined through an independent medical board constituted by Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, as allegedly done for another similarly situated employee.¶11
The court held
Discretion exercised by DTC in a particular case cannot be cited as a precedent to direct DTC to universally adopt such practice.ratio¶16
3.
Whether the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital OPD declaration of fitness establishes that the Petitioner is fit to drive a public transport vehicle.¶18
The court held
Although the OPD Card declares the Petitioner fit for duty, he has not been certified fit to drive a public transport vehicle or to perform a duty of that nature.ratio¶19

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 16.07.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing O.A. No. 1939/2024 filed by the Petitioner against DTC orders dated 06.02.2024 and 25.01.2024.¶9
Central Administrative Tribunal · 16.07.2025
Prior proceeding
Orders dated 04.12.2020, 25.01.2024 and 06.02.2024 passed by the Delhi Transport Corporation were assailed in the writ petition.¶9
Prior proceeding
Petitioner retired as a Driver with DTC upon attaining the age of 55 years.¶10
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's request for extension in service was rejected on the basis of the DTC Medical Board's opinion.¶10
Prior proceeding
Petitioner examined by the DTC Medical Board on 05.10.2023 and re-examined on 12.10.2023.¶15
Prior proceeding
Medical Board found the Petitioner not fit for extension, opining 'Restricted movement Right Elbow Joint'.¶15

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Ram Kumar¶3
Sourabh Ahuja
respondent
Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.¶4
Manisha Tyagi

Coram

AI extract

Anil Kshetarpalmember¶6
Amit Mahajanmember¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Delhi HC
Decided on: 16 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 18 Nov 2025
Case no.: W.P.(C)/17590/2025
CNR: DLHC010914142025
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal Amit Mahajan
Case type: Writ Petition (Civil)

A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

Nearest Writ Petition (Civil) decided by the Delhi HC

Rajeev Ranjan Vederah Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.
15 Jan 2026Jasmeet Singh
Shiv Lal & Ors. Vs Central Public Works Department(Cpwd) & Anr.
15 Jan 2026Sachin Datta
Rahul Bajaj Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.
15 Jan 2026Prathiba M. Singh Madhu Jain
Vikas Jaiswal Vs Central Information Commission
15 Jan 2026Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Mohammad Wasi through Spa Suman Patra Vs Central Adoption Resource Authority & Anr.
17 Jan 2026Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Vivek Mukherji Vs Union of India & Anr.
17 Jan 2026Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Sanjay Kumar Nigam Vs Union of India & Ors.
17 Jan 2026Sanjeev Narula
Sudhanshu Joshi Vs Union of India & Ors.
17 Jan 2026Sanjeev Narula

More from Anil Kshetarpal Amit Mahajan

Ndmc and Ors. Vs Nanak Chand
15 Jan 2026Writ Petition (Civil)
Union of India and Ors. Vs Hari Narayan Meena
15 Jan 2026Writ Petition (Civil)
Manoj Kumar Vs President All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.
15 Jan 2026Writ Petition (Civil)
Guguloth Mohan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.
16 Jan 2026Writ Petition (Civil)
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Shri Pal Singh
16 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

Ram Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., W.P.(C)/17590/2025 (DEL), decided on 16 January 2026.

The High Court of Delhi publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history6

Order dated 16.07.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing O.A. No. 1939/2024 filed by the Petitioner against DTC orders dated 06.02.2024 and 25.01.2024.Central Administrative Tribunal · 16.07.2025
Orders dated 04.12.2020, 25.01.2024 and 06.02.2024 passed by the Delhi Transport Corporation were assailed in the writ petition.
Petitioner retired as a Driver with DTC upon attaining the age of 55 years.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan

Parties & counsel

Writ Petition (Civil)

Sunil K Aggarwal Vs Secy to Goi Mod and Ors.

16 Jan 2026Writ Petition (Civil)