Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Anita Kumari
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010498832026
+ W.P.(C) 15290/2026 & CM APPL. 71790/2026, CM
APPL.71791/2026, CM APPL. 71792/2026 & CM APPL.
71793/2026
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr. Nishit Agrawal and Dr. Divya Swamy,
Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Deepti Rathi, Ms.
Nidhi Kumar, Mr. Anubhav Agarwal, Advs.
versus
ANITA KUMARI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. R V Sinha, Mr. A S Singh,
Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Shriya Sharma and
Mr. Harsh Verma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 16.10.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails order dated 29 September 2026 passed
1
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in CP 439/2024 in OA
2525/2023.
2. OA 2525/2023 was instituted by the respondent seeking
regularisation as Teacher (Primary) in the services of the Municipal
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 1 of 16
2
Corporation of Delhi .
3. The OA was allowed by the Tribunal by judgment dated 4 April
2024. The operative directions contained in the said judgment read
thus:
“31. Therefore, we allow the Original Application with
following order(s) and directions:-
(i) We hold and declare the engagement of the
applicant as Teacher (Primary) on contract basis with
intermittent breaks, non-payment of salary and allowances
and other service benefits at par with regular Teacher
(Primary) under the respondents as arbitrary and violative
of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India;
(ii) Consequently, we direct the competent authority
amongst the respondents to pass an order for regularizing
the applicant’s services as Teacher (Primary) from the date
of her initial appointment/engagement i.e. 11.09.2003;
(iii) To fix the pay of the applicant as a regular Teacher
(Primary), grant annual increment(s), leave and also to
consider her for promotion/grant of benefits under
ACP/MACP scheme(s) as per the extant rules and
instructions in this regard and also to pay her the
consequential benefits arising out of the same;
(iv) The interim order dated 22.8.2023 passed in the
present OA is made absolute;
(vi) The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the
respondents within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
4. Clearly, the Tribunal had, in its judgment, directed
regularisation of the respondent as Teacher (Primary) with
consequential benefits.
2
“MCD” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 2 of 16
5. The MCD challenged the said decision before this Court by
means of WP (C) 8501/2024. By judgment dated 16 April 2025 this
Court dismissed the said writ petition along with other writ petitions
which were listed together with it. In dismissing the writ petition, this
3
Court followed the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. UOI ,
4 5
Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and UOI v. K Velajagan .
6. The operative para 40 of the judgment of this Court read thus:
“ 40. Resultantly,
(i) the judgments dated 30 September 2019
rendered by the Tribunal in OA 2482/2019, OA
2387/2019 and OA 2483/2019 and judgment dated
13 March 2021 rendered in OA 3540/2019, are
quashed and set aside,
(ii) OA 2482/2019, OA 2387/2019, OA
2483/2019, OA 3540/2019 shall stand allowed in
terms of the prayers contained therein,
(iii) WP (C) 11693/2019, WP (C) 11694/2019, WP
(C) 11695/2019 and WP (C) 7915/2023 shall also
stand allowed accordingly,
(iv) judgment dated 4 April 2024, rendered by the
Tribunal in OA 2525/2023 is affirmed in its
entirety, and
(v) WP (C) 8501/2024 stands dismissed
accordingly.”
7. The matter was carried further by the MCD to the Supreme
Court by way of an SLP.
3
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 221
5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 837
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 3 of 16
8. By order dated 27 May 2026, the Supreme Court disposed of
the SLP in the following terms:
“1. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the
dispute arising in this matter is covered by the reasoned decision of
this Court in Civil Appeal No. 07120/2026 titled as “ Sunil Kumar
6
Yadav and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors .” and “ U.P.
Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association. vs.
7
State of U.P ”.
2. In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of exactly
in terms of the aforesaid both the decisions confirming the decision
of the High Court.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
9. As the respondent was not regularised, despite the dismissal of
the writ petition by this Court and the order passed by the Supreme
Court, the respondent filed CP 439/2024, seeking initiation of
contempt proceedings against the petitioners.
10. It is relevant to mention that the MCD moved a Miscellaneous
Application before the Supreme Court seeking clarifications/directions
with respect to the aforesaid order dated 27 May 2026.
11. The following passages, from the said application, which would
emphasise the points which were sought to be raised by the MCD to
support its plea for clarifications/ directions, merit reproduction:
14. It is respectfully submitted that the necessity for the present
application primarily arises from the fact that the final order dated
27.05.2026 simultaneously records that the captioned matter stands
disposed of in terms of both Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) and U.P.
Junior High (supra) notwithstanding that the said decisions
6
(2026) SCC Online SC 818
7
(2026) SCC Online SC 147
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 4 of 16
proceed on materially different factual foundations and address
distinct questions of law. The present application has therefore
become necessary for the limited purpose of obtaining clarification/
direction with respect to the order dated 27.05.2026 so as to ensure
its correct understanding, implementation and application by all
concerned authorities and subordinate for to prevent miscarriage of
justice.
*
34. It is submitted that, in these peculiar circumstances,
clarification/direction with respect to the order dated 27.05.2026
has become imperative to obviate any ambiguity regarding the ratio
governing the captioned matter and to prevent the said order from
being interpreted or implemented in a manner unintended by this
Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that unless the scope and
effect of the said order are clarified, the Petitioner Corporation
would continue to remain exposed to contempt proceedings and
other coercive consequences founded upon an erroneous
understanding that this Hon'ble Court has affirmed the impugned
judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court directing regularisation
of the Respondent herein. Such a consequence would not only
result in manifest prejudice to the Petitioner Corporation but would
also permit the order dated 27.05.2026 to be employed in manner
inconsistent with the law declared by this Hon'ble Court in Sunil
Kumar Yadav (supra).
35. In the aforesaid circumstances, it has become necessary to
seek clarification/ direction regarding the true import and effect of
paragraph 2 of the order dated 27.05.2026. It is in these peculiar
circumstances that the present application is being preferred
seeking a limited clarification/ direction from this Hon’ble Court
with respect to the scope and effect of the order dated 27.05.2026,
so as to obviate any ambiguity and to ensure that the said order is
understood and implemented in accordance with the ratio
governing the issue involved in the captioned matter and Sunil
Kumar Yadav (supra), and its faithful and uniform implementation
by all subordinate fora to prevent miscarriage of justice.
36. It is, therefore, necessary to be clarified that the present
matter is covered by the reasoned decision of this Hon’ble Court in
Civil Appeal No. 7120 of 2026 titled Sunil Kumar Yadav and Ors.
vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors . and that the captioned
petition stand allowed in terms of the aforesaid decision.
37. Accordingly, in compliance with the circular dated
03.01.2025, it is declared on oath that the filing of the
accompanying Miscellaneous Application has been necessitated as
the order dated 27.05.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the
captioned matter is executory in nature, and has become impossible
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 5 of 16
to be implemented due to subsequent events and developments
insofar as the interpretation of the said order is concerned.
38. The captioned matter, therefore, warrants urgent
consideration by this Hon’ble Court to prevent the Petitioner
Corporation from being subjected to proceedings founded upon a
position of law that stands settled by the judgment in Sunil Kumar
Yadav (supra).
12. The application ultimately prayed as under:
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that in view of facts and
circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Allow the present application seeking clarification/
direction with respect to the order dated 27.05.2026 to
clarify that the present matter is only covered by the
reasoned decision of this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal
No. 7120 of 2026 titled Sunil Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs.
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ; and/or
b. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”
13. When the Miscellaneous Application came up before the
Supreme Court on 17 August 2026, the Counsel for the MCD
addressed the Supreme Court for some time and thereafter sought
permission to withdraw the Miscellaneous Application to work out
other remedies available. The Supreme Court therefore disposed of
the application in the following terms:
“1. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner/applicant, after addressing the Court for a while, requests
the Court to permit him to withdraw the present Miscellaneous
Application and work out the other remedies available on the
grievance of the petitioner/applicant.
2. The statement is placed on record.”
14. By order dated 29 September 2026, the Tribunal has held that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 6 of 16
the directions contained in the judgment dated 16 April 2025 passed
by this Court in writ petition had attained finality and were therefore,
required to be complied with.
15. Accordingly, the Tribunal has adjourned the matter with the
following directions:
“21. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition be listed for
reporting compliance on 14/10/2026. The respondent No.1 is
granted last opportunity to place on record a proper and specific
compliance report indicating the implementation of the judgment
dated 04.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal, as affirmed in its entirety
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated
16.04.2025 in WP(C) No.8501/2024 and thereafter considered and
confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
16. Claiming to be aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the MCD has
now approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
17. We have heard Mr. Chetan Sharma, the learned Additional
Solicitor General for the MCD and Mr. R V Sinha, learned Counsel
for the respondent.
18. Mr. Chetan Sharma emphasises the words “exactly in terms of
the aforesaid both the decisions” in para 2 of the order dated 27 May
2026 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP preferred by MCD against
the judgment dated 16 April 2025 of this Court. His submission is
that the judgment dated 16 April 2025 of this Court in WP (C)
8501/2024 was contrary in terms to the decision in Sunil Kumar
Yadav and that, therefore, could no longer be complied with.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 7 of 16
19. The learned ASG has also sought to emphasize, once again, the
submissions such as the issue of whether the respondent was
appointed against a regular vacancy, which were considered by this
Court while deciding WP (C) 8501/2024.
20. The learned ASG has thereafter sought to take us to paras 18 to
24 of Sunil Kumar Yadav to contend that the right of the respondent
to seek regularisation now stands undone in view of the fact that SLP
19984/2026 stands dismissed exactly in terms of the decision in Sunil
Kumar Yadav .
21. The learned ASG also submits that, if a judgment is capable of
being understood in more than one way, it cannot constitute a ground
to urge contempt. Any failure to comply with the order of which
contempt is alleged cannot, in such circumstances, be regarded as
wilful or contumacious.
22. We have considered the submissions of both the sides.
23. In so far as the concluding submission of the learned ASG is
concerned, we note that the Tribunal has not, in the order under
challenge, proceeded against the petitioner for contempt. The Tribunal
has considered the submissions of the petitioner MCD that there was
ambiguity and that there was no requirement, in view of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Yadav , to regularise the service
of the respondent. The Tribunal has rejected the said contention and
has given further time to the petitioner to comply with its order.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 8 of 16
24. We, therefore, have only to examine whether the understanding,
by the Tribunal, of the legal position, is correct.
25. There can be no cavil with the preposition that, if there is
ambiguity in a judgment, so that it can be understand in more than one
way, any breach of such a judgment may not tantamount to contempt.
However, we are of the considered opinion that, in the present case, no
such ambiguity exists.
26. The submissions of the learned ASG have essentially revolved
around the understanding of the order dated 27 May 2026 passed by
the Supreme Court in SLP (C) 19984/2025.
27. It is necessary, therefore, to holistically read the said order,
which, for ready reference, we may once again reproduce as under:
“1. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the
dispute arising in this matter is covered by the reasoned decision of
this Court in Civil Appeal No. 07120/2026 titled as “ Sunil Kumar
Yadav and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors .” and “ U.P.
Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association. vs.
State of U.P ”.
2. In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of exactly
in terms of the aforesaid both the decisions confirming the decision
of the High Court.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
28. Accepting the submissions of the learned ASG would, to our
mind, require us to consign, to oblivion, the words “confirming the
decision of the High Court” in para 2 of the order dated 27 May 2026,
passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) 19984/2025. To our mind,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 9 of 16
the Supreme Court, quite clearly, having noted the contention of
learned Counsel for the parties that the matter was covered by the
decisions in Sunil Kumar Yadav and Uttar Pradesh Junior High
School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar
Pradesh , disposed of the writ petition in terms of the said decisions
confirming the decision of the High Court . It is clear, to our mind,
that the Supreme Court had decided to leave the decision of the High
Court undisturbed.
29. Nonetheless, in order to satisfy ourselves, we have also perused
the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Yadav and Uttar
Pradesh Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare
Association , in order to examine whether these judgments, in any way
militate against the direction to regularise the services of the
respondent.
30. Sunil Kumar Yadav dealt with engagement of para-teachers
8
under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan , a flagship program of the
Government of India for universalisation of elementary education, in
Jharkhand. They sought regularisation of their services as Assistant
Teachers. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions. They
appealed to the Supreme Court.
31. Before the Supreme Court, the State contested the writ petition.
It was sought to be contended that employment of para-teachers in the
SSA could, at best, be a temporary arrangement. Moreover, statutory
policy for regularisation was in place. The manner in which the
8
"SSA" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 10 of 16
appellants before the Supreme Court sought regularisation was
contrary to the policy as well as the constitutional mandate. Inter alia ,
reliance was placed on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
9
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi . The Supreme
Court, in the circumstances, identified the issue arising before it for
consideration as whether the Court could direct regularisation of the
appellants before it contrary to the statutory scheme in place in that
regard.
32. That, quite decidedly, is not the issue in controversy before us.
33. Even so, the Supreme Court made it clear, in para 24 of its
report, thus:
“24. We are of the view that the State cannot be heard, on the
one hand, to successfully resist the prayer for regularisation of
para-teachers as Assistant Teachers/Sahayak Acharyas, while, on
the other hand, not give effect to its own statutory framework for
regularisation of the services of para-teachers . The State of
Jharkhand ought not to delay in issuing a notification exclusively
for para-teachers for their appointment as Assistant
Teachers/Sahayak Acharya. For policy and practical reasons, and
given the financial implications for the exchequer, the State of
Jharkhand must explore the option of notifying exclusively the 50
per cent of vacant posts marked as Assistant Teachers under the
2012 and 2022 Rules. The sense of security of employment is a
sine qua non for enhancing efficiency in any service, and
education is no different. The teacher-student bond is not
temporary but spans the academic years. Expecting a para-teacher ,
without a guarantee of their employment, to guarantee a child's
future and education is fallacious. The time has come for the
executive to conduct periodic performance audits and eliminate ad
hocism in public employment. The courts do not advise the
executive, but the executive, by putting in place ad hoc
mechanisms, would affect society's progress and the future of
children. Therefore, the following directions are issued to the State
of Jharkhand to issue a notification inviting applications
9
(2006) 4 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 11 of 16
exclusively from para-teachers for appointment to 50 per cent of
the marked vacancies for both Assistant Teachers and Sahayak
Acharyas.”
34. The directives that followed in the judgment were towards
implementation of the aforesaid observations, for which the Supreme
Court prescribed strict timelines.
35. The ratio decidendi of Sunil Kumar Yadav , nonetheless,
remains that persons cannot be made to continue for years on contract
or ad hoc basis without regularisation, thereby resulting in continued
uncertainty in their service.
36. Though the learned ASG did not place reliance on U.P. Junior
High School Instructor Welfare Assn , we have perused that decision
as well. The issue in controversy, in that case, was thus identified by
the Supreme Court in para 12 of the report:
“Whether part-time contractual instructors/teachers appointed in
Upper Primary School in the State of U.P. are entitled to revision
of their honorarium of Rs 7000 per month which was fixed for a
contract period of eleven months in the year 2013 or would
continue to receive the same fixed honorarium for years together or
for all times to come without any increment.”
Para 24 of the report once again reiterated this issue, thus:
“24. In the light of the above facts and submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, the central issue in the present appeals is
about the honorarium payable to the part-time contractual
instructors/teachers of the Upper Primary Schools in the State of
Uttar Pradesh and whether the fixed honorarium payable to them
under the initial contract is revisable from time to time.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 12 of 16
Regularisation was not, therefore, the issue in controversy in U.P.
Junior High School Instructor Welfare Assn . The Supreme Court, in
this case, in fact followed Jaggo , and observed as under:
“41. There is another important facet of the matter which needs
to be addressed by us. The appointment of these part-time
contractual instructors/teachers, though for a limited period of one
year, has undisputedly continued for over ten years in a row. The
scheme adopted by the State Government envisages for
appointment of one such instructor/teacher for every hundred
students; meaning thereby, that for every hundred students in a
school, one instructor/teacher is mandatory. Thus, it flows from
abovementioned facts that though posts for such teachers have not
been specifically created but by virtue of their continuous
engagement and subsistence of the scheme, they have acquired
certain degree of permanency and the posts stand created or
deemed to be created per se automatically.
42. Notably, these part-time contractual instructors/teachers
were discharging duties similar to regular teachers including
teaching up to eight periods in a day, thereby performing the same
workload and responsibilities as regular teachers. In view of
constitutional mandate of providing free education up to primary
levels, the State Government cannot abandon the scheme and
render the Upper Primary Education meaningless, as it would be in
conflict with the Act. Accordingly, the nature of work assigned to
these instructors/teachers is apparently of a permanent nature. The
conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that the appointments of these
instructors/teachers are more or less of a permanent nature and
against a post which is deemed to have been created substantively.
43. The appointment of these instructors/teachers, even if held
to be contractual, part-time or even temporary in nature, there is
hardly any scope to replace these instructors/teachers by a fresh
contractual, part-time or temporary instructor/teacher inasmuch as
these are the persons who are not only qualified but have acquired
some experience of working and are definitely more suitable than
the freshers. It goes without saying that an ad hoc employee cannot
be replaced by another ad hoc employee, a temporary employee
cannot be replaced by another temporary employee, a contractual
employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee and
the guest employee by another guest employee. The incumbents
working as aforesaid are entitled to preference in comparison to the
new candidates, unless of course there is anything against them. In
fact, practice of engaging employees on ad hoc , temporary, part-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 13 of 16
time, contractual or as guest ought to be avoided and the
Government should strictly adhere to proper procedure for regular
recruitment.
44. In the instant case, all appointments of the
instructors/teachers were made by following the procedure
prescribed under the scheme pursuant to a proper advertisement. In
a sense, they were all substantively appointed, maybe there was no
sanctioned post but the sanction of the post is deemed to be there
as the nature of the work assigned to these instructors/teachers is of
a permanent nature which in all probabilities is of a continuing
nature and is not likely to be abandoned or curtailed in any manner.
45. The term “substantive appointment” is not so defined but in
service jurisprudence is considered to mean an appointment, not
being an ad hoc appointment, on a post made after selection in
accordance with the rules and in the absence of the rules in
accordance with the procedure prescribed for under any scheme or
the instructions of the Government. Therefore, once these
instructors/teachers have undergone the process of selection under
the scheme regardless of the fact that there existed a post, their
appointments have to be treated as substantive in character.
46. In the facts and circumstances, the business of calling such
instructors/teachers as ad hoc appointees or temporary appointees
or part-time or contractual appointees is altogether a misnomer and
is not at all appropriate.
47. In Jaggo v. Union of India this Court observed that it is a
hard reality that temporary employees, particularly in government
institutions often face multifaceted forms of exploitation which
include misuse of “temporary labels”, “lack of career progression”
and “denial of basic rights and benefits”. It further observed that
employees engaged for work which is essentially recurring and
integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as
“temporary” or “contractual” employees even though their roles
mirror those of regular employees. Such deceptive description of
the employees deprives them of their dignity, security and benefits
that other regular employees are entitled to, despite performing
identical duties. These employees often find themselves excluded
from opportunities for skill development, promotions or
incremental pay raises, and they remain stagnant in their roles.
They are deprived of fundamental benefits such a pension,
provident fund, health insurance and paid leave even though they
work for decades resulting in social insecurity.”
37. The constitutional imperative of security in public employment,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 14 of 16
therefore, if anything, stands re-emphasized in U.P. Junior High
School Instructor Welfare Assn .
38. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the decisions
in Sunil Kumar Yadav and State of Uttar Pradesh Junior High
School Council Instructor Welfare Association, too, cannot be read
as disentitling the respondent to regularisation or in any way diluting
the directions of the Tribunal or of this Court in that regard.
39. Besides, the submissions advanced by the learned ASG were
specifically raised by the MCD in the Miscellaneous Application filed
by it before the Supreme Court for clarification of the order dated 27
May 2026. A reading of the order dated 27 May 2026 passed by the
Supreme Court on the said MA makes it clear that, after some attempt
to convince the Supreme Court, the Counsel for the MCD withdrew
the application.
40. In that view of the matter, it would be folly, on our part, to
allow the same contentions to be advanced once again before us, even
after the confirmation, by the Supreme Court, in its order dated 27
May 2026, of the judgment dated 16 April 2025 passed by this Court
in WP (C) 8501/2024.
41. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal is
not in error in holding that the direction to regularise the respondent
has attained finality and, therefore, in directing compliance with the
said direction.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 15 of 16
42. We do not find this, therefore, to be a case deserving of
interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in us
by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
43. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine . However,
three weeks further time is granted to the MCD to comply with the
directions of the Tribunal.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2026
dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:05:15
W.P.(C) 15290/2026 Page 16 of 16