Dismissed¶18

Jagdish Chand v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC24 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3787/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jagdish Chand v. Delhi Development Authority; regularization 1977; casual worker Beldar; Work Charge Staff; service and pensionary benefits; identity discrepancy Laxman Dass / Laxmi Dass; Jadwal; absence from duty since 1992; Identity Card 1989; letter dated 03.10.1989; CAT Principal Bench O.A. No.2012/2023 dismissed; findings of fact; name and parentage discrepancies; inordinate delay; writ instituted 2021; no ground for interference; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court accepted that the Tribunal had returned findings of fact on the material on record, there being material discrepancies not only in the Petitioner's name but also in the name of his father/parentage, and the Petitioner had failed to establish that he is the same person whose services were regularized. ¶17

Jagdish Chand Vs Delhi Development Authority — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's services stood regularized in 1977, entitling him to consequential service and pensionary benefits, despite his failure to establish identity with the regularized employee and material discrepancies in name and parentage. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The O.A. itself came to be filed after an inordinate delay, i.e., in the year 2021, which formed part of the grounds for refusing interference.

¶17

Key takeaways

In view of the foregoing (findings of fact on discrepancies and the delay), no ground for interference with the Tribunal's order was made out, and the Writ Petition was dismissed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 3787/2026 and CM APPL. 18546/2026 (decided 24.03.2026; bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan): Petitioner Jagdish Chand sought quashing of the order dated 02.12.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing his O.A. No.2012/2023, wherein he claimed engagement as a casual worker in May 1974, declaration as Work Charge Staff in 1976 and regularization in 1977, with consequential service and pensionary benefits from the Delhi Development Authority. On record search, no service record was traceable for 'Jagdish Chand s/o Sh. Laxman Dass'; the records showed one 'Jagdish Chand Jadwal s/o Sh. Laxmi Dass' whose services had been regularized, and the Petitioner failed to establish that he was the same person. His only supporting documents were a 1989 Identity Card and a letter dated 03.10.1989; he admitted absence from duty since 1992. Upholding the Tribunal's findings of fact on material discrepancies in the Petitioner's name and parentage, and noting that the O.A. came to be filed after an inordinate delay (the Writ Petition having been instituted in 2021), the Court held no ground for interference was made out and dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶1

$~108

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3787/2026 and CM APPL. 18546/2026 JAGDISH CHAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shakti Jaidwal, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R % 24.03.2026

¶9

Through the present Petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’], whereby O.A. No.2012/2023 preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed.

¶10

The Petitioner had filed the aforesaid O.A. claiming that he was initially engaged as a casual worker (‘Beldar’) in May, 1974; was declared as ‘Work Charge Staff’ in 1976 and that his services were regularized in 1977. It is further his case that, on the basis of such regularization, he is entitled to consequential service and pensionary benefits. However, it is an admitted position that the Petitioner absented himself from duty in the year 1992 and did not thereafter rejoin service.

¶11

The Writ Petition was instituted in the year 2021. Upon search of records, the Respondents reported that no service record pertaining

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 27/03/2026 at 12:53:45

¶14

to the Petitioner, namely Sh. Jagdish Chand s/o Sh. Laxman Dass was traceable. It was, however, indicated that one Sh. Jagdish Chand Jadwal s/o Sh. Laxmi Dass existed in the records, whose services had been regularized. The Petitioner failed to establish that he is the same person.

¶15

Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed, inter alia , noting that the Petitioner himself admits to having not attended office after 1992. In support of his case, the Petitioner relied only upon an Identity Card issued in the year 1989 and a letter dated 03.10.1989 calling upon him to resume duty. Apart from that, the Petitioner failed to produce any other documents.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that, at the relevant time, names and parentage were recorded in a casual manner, and therefore, this Court ought to hold that the Petitioner’s services stood regularized in 1977, entitling him to pensionary benefits.

¶17

The Tribunal has returned findings of fact upon appreciation of the material on record. There are material discrepancies not only in the Petitioner’s name but also in the name of his father/parentage. Additionally, the O.A. itself came to be filed after an inordinate delay, i.e., in the year 2021.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, no ground for interference is made out. The present Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶20

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶21

MARCH 24, 2026 /sp/shah

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 27/03/2026 at 12:53:45

Jagdish Chand v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chand v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kewal Canteen Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sabina Shamim Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ms. Alim Sainab Bihi & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sai Eternal Foundation Vs National Highways Logistic Management Ltd.

Saroj Vs Pio, Vigilance Sdmc

Department of Post through Its Secretary & Ors. Vs Ajay Singh

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Pramod Kumar IPS & Anr.

Delhi Police & Anr. Vs Sudheer Kumar

The UOI & Ors. Vs Badri Prasad Prajapati

UOI & Ors. Vs B.N.Chaubey & Ors.

Iqbal Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shri Virender Kaushik Vs Satish Jindal

Wadia Techno Engineering Services Limited Vs Director General of Married Accommodation Project & Anr.