SHYAMBIR SINGH vs DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION (GNCTD)

1 Dy. No.`10324/2026

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

Dy. No.10324/2026


Order reserved on: 30.09.2026
Order pronounced on: 26.10.2026


Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Shyambir Singh
Grade-I (DASS)/Section Officer,
D-329, East Gokalpur, Delhi-94.
....Applicant

(Applicant in person)

Versus

The Principal Secretary,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-54.
... Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. H.A.Khan)


ORDER

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)


The instant Application (Dy. No.10324/2026) has been
filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“(i) Direct the Respondent to issue the suspension
order/ impugned order for maturing the OA
No.3214/2026.

(ii) Pass any other relief which Deemed may be fit in the
interest of justice.”



SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:31:57+05'30'
DUTT

2 Dy. No.`10324/2026

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the
applicant filed OA No.3214/2026, which was dismissed by
this Tribunal vide order dated 20.08.2026 being pre-mature.
Thereafter the applicant made a representation to the
respondents to issue suspension order. As the respondents
have not taken any action on the aforesaid representation of
the applicant, he has filed the instant OA, seeking the
aforementioned relief.

3. When the matter was taken up for
admission/consideration, this Tribunal found that the
application is contrary to the legal position contained in the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the Rules framed
thereunder.
3.1 Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
states:-
“19. Applications to Tribunals
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act a person
aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the
jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the
Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, “order”
means an order made


(a) by the Government or a local or other authority within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of
India or by any corporation [or society] owned or controlled
by the Government; or
(b) by an officer, committee or other body or agency of the
Government or a local or other authority or corporation [or
society] referred to in clause (a).
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:31:57+05'30'
DUTT

3 Dy. No.`10324/2026


3.2 Perusal of the aforementioned application by the present
applicant shows that the applicant has not impugned any
order by the respondents. Instead, the applicant has
th
impugned order dated 20 August 2026 in OA No.
3214/2026. This is contrary to the aforementioned statutory
provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3.3 Further Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 has specifically mentioned that the applicant before
approaching the Tribunal should have availed all remedial
administrative avenues available to him. The said Section
states:
“20. Applications not to be admitted unless other
remedies exhausted
(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application
unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all
the remedies available to him under the relevant service
rules as to redressal of grievances.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be
deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to
him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of
grievances, -

(a) if a final order has been made by the Government or
other authority or officer or other person competent to
pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal
preferred or representation made by such person in
connection with the grievance; or

(b) where no final order has been made by the
Government or other authority or officer or other person
competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal
preferred or representation made by such person, if a
period of six months from the date on which such appeal
was preferred or representation was made has expired.

(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any
remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of
a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State
or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:31:57+05'30'
DUTT

4 Dy. No.`10324/2026

of the remedies which are available unless the applicant
had elected to submit such memorial.

3.3 The present OA is pre-mature as six months have not
elapsed since he submitted the representation seeking
suspension of himself from the services of the respondents.
Seeking suspension from the respondents is not a legal
remedy ordinarily prayed for nor granted as a relief. The
applicant has failed to mention any representation submitted
to the respondents seeking any other genuine grievance
relating to his service matter. In absence of such pleadings
and substantiation, this Tribunal is unable to appreciate the
concerns of the applicant pertaining to his service matters
with the respondents.
3.4 Perusal of order dated 20.8.2026 in OA No. 3214/2026
shows that the applicant has also approached this Tribunal
without any specific order issued by the respondents or any
pending representation.
3.5 It seems the applicant is unaware of the legal provisions
governing filing of applications before this Tribunal. However,
ignorance regarding law is not bliss. The applicant should
have been more vigilant when his previous frivolous OA was
not admitted. The Registry has pointed out the defects in the
present application. Despite that, as per record of the
Registry, the applicant has requested the Registry to list the
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:31:57+05'30'
DUTT

5 Dy. No.`10324/2026

matter before an appropriate Bench despite the defects.
Hence, it is a deliberate attempt by the applicant to push for a
defective application before a Bench.
4. When the matter was taken up on 30.9.2026, the
following has been recorded by the Tribunal:
“The applicant in person was queried as to what is his
relief. The applicant in person states that he wanted
that an employee who is mentioned in his
representation dated 31.08.2026 annexed at Annexure
A-2 namely Shyambir Singh, Grade -1, DASS. The query
was that what is the relationship of the applicant in
person with the employee and how is it permissible
under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
The applicant in person cannot respond. He was given
an option to withdraw the ill drafted OA and file a better
drafted one.
2. The applicant in person states that he is ready to
face all consequences and let the Tribunal to pass
appropriate order.”

4.1 It is evident that the application is not legally
maintainable. It is also evident that despite the objection by
the Registry and query by this Tribunal, the applicant was
bent upon insisting on passing appropriate order qua his
application. From all these, this Tribunal comes to conclusion
that the applicant is bent upon pushing frivolous applications
to the Tribunal. This amounts to wastage of precious time of
the Bench which could have been utilized by giving
opportunity to other deserving litigants to decide their cases.
5. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed
at the admission stage itself being not maintainable under the
SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:31:57+05'30'
DUTT

6 Dy. No.`10324/2026

relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, as
quoted hereinabove.
6. An exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
thousand only) is also imposed on the applicant to be
deposited into the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund for insisting
on frivolous litigation. The applicant shall deposit the said
cost within eight weeks from pronouncement of this order and
shall file the compliance report with the Registry.
8. No order as to costs.
9. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.


(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)

‘SD’


SUNITA 2026.11.02
11:31:57+05'30'
DUTT