D K Yadav vs EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (EDMC)

1
M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No.8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No. 8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017

th
This the 25 day of August, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

1. Devender Kumar Yadav,
S/o Late Shankar,
Age about 50 years,
H.No.323 Anil Vihar Khora Colony,
Ghaziabad U.P. 201005.

2. Naipal Singh,
S/o Late Chetram,
Age about 55 years,
H.No.336 ACD Munirka Village
New Delhi-110067.


3. Rambir Singh,
S/o Late Bhoolay Ram,
Age about 53 years,
1/4699/B-11D Gali No.10
New Modal Shadhra, Delhi.

4. Sanshar Singh,
S/o Sh. Surat Singh,
Age about 57 years,
A 229 Vikas Kunj Loni
Ghaziabad U.P.


…Review Applicants

VERSUS
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.09.0 1
11:38:13
+05'30'
ANKIT
SAKL
ANI

2
M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No.8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017


1. The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Civic Centre, New Delhi.

2. The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Civic Centre, New Delhi.

3. The Director,
Local Bodies,
New Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi.

4. MHO
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Health Department, Udyog Sadan
419, Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi 110092.
... Respondents

ORDER (in Circulation)
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

M.A. No. 4010/2026
For the reasons mentioned in the Miscellaneous
Application, we allow the same and condone the delay of 36
days in filing the accompanying Review Application filed
vide Dy. No. 8883/2026.
Review Application (Dy. No. 8883/202
The present Review Application has been filed seeking
review of the order dated 26.05.2026, whereby the Original
Application was disposed of with a direction that the
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.09.0 1
11:38:13
+05'30'
ANKIT
SAKL
ANI

3
M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No.8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017


Review Applicants would also be bound by the final
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Manish Kumar , SLP
(C) Diary No. 3221/2025, and would be entitled to the
benefit thereof, if applicable, in accordance with law.
2. At the outset, it may be noted that in the original order
dated 26.05.2026, the review applicants were duly
represented by Mr. V.K. Gandhi, learned counsel. The said
order was an oral order. It is, therefore, not a case where
the review applicants were unrepresented on the said date
or that the matter was heard and decided ex parte. The
review applicants had due representation through learned
counsel at the time when the Original Application was
taken up.
3. Thereafter, the Original Application was disposed of
after the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the issue involved therein was already
pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and that the operation of the judgment dated 23.09.2024
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA
No.956/2024 had been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.09.0 1
11:38:13
+05'30'
ANKIT
SAKL
ANI

4
M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No.8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017


Court vide order dated 14.02.2025. It was also specifically
recorded that the learned counsel for the respondents did
not dispute that the review applicants were similarly
situated to the parties in the aforesaid proceedings.
4. The review applicants now contend that the proceedings
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concern
contractual Assistant Malaria Inspectors, whereas the
review applicants are departmental candidates who were
working as Field Workers and were subsequently
promoted/officiating as Assistant Malaria Inspectors on ad-
hoc basis. It is further contended that their grievance
relates to regularization of their ad-hoc service and
consideration for promotion, and that the factual and legal
issues involved in the two matters are therefore different.
5. We have considered the submissions made in support of
the Review Application. It is no doubt true that the review
applicants have sought to draw a distinction between their
status as departmental/ad-hoc employees and the nature
of engagement of the employees involved in the proceedings
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the
said distinction, by itself, does not disclose any error
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.09.0 1
11:38:13
+05'30'
ANKIT
SAKL
ANI

5
M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No.8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017


apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the
order dated 26.05.2026.
6. The order dated 26.05.2026 was passed on the basis of
the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for
the parties at the time of hearing. The order specifically
records that the respondents did not dispute that the
review applicants were similarly situated to the parties in
the aforesaid proceedings. The review applicants were
represented by learned counsel on that date, and there is
nothing on record to show that any objection was raised on
their behalf that the present case was factually or legally
distinguishable from the proceedings pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. The review applicants have not pointed out any
inadvertent mistake or patent error in the order dated
26.05.2026. Rather, they seek to introduce and rely upon a
distinction between the two sets of cases which, according
to them, ought to have been considered while disposing of
the Original Application. Such a contention, particularly
when the review applicants were duly represented at the
time of the original hearing, cannot be treated as an error
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.09.0 1
11:38:13
+05'30'
ANKIT
SAKL
ANI

6
M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No.8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017


apparent on the face of the record. A review jurisdiction
cannot be invoked for raising a fresh contention or for
seeking a rehearing of the matter on an aspect which was
not urged before the Tribunal at the appropriate stage.
8. We are also conscious of the submission that the review
applicants came to know about the order only on
25.05.2026. The said assertion, however, appears to be
inconsistent with the order sought to be reviewed, which is
dated 26.05.2026, and in any event does not explain why
the distinction now sought to be relied upon was not
brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the matter was
heard. The said plea, therefore, does not assist the review
applicants in establishing any error apparent in the order.
9. It is also relevant to note that the Original Application
was not adjudicated on the merits of the claim for
regularization or promotion. The Tribunal merely disposed
of the matter by directing that the review applicants would
be bound by the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and would receive the benefit thereof, if applicable,
in accordance with law. Thus, no final determination
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.09.0 1
11:38:13
+05'30'
ANKIT
SAKL
ANI

7
M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No.8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017


adverse to the substantive rights of the review applicants
was made by the Tribunal.
10. The review applicants have also relied upon the earlier
proceedings in O.A. No.3365/2011, the subsequent ad-hoc
promotion as AMI and the alleged holding of DPCs in the
years 2016-2017. These aspects may constitute matters
relevant to the merits of their claim; however, their
consideration would require examination of the substantive
rights and factual circumstances of the parties. Such an
exercise would amount to reconsideration of the Original
Application on merits, which is beyond the limited scope of
review jurisdiction.
11. The scope of review is limited and cannot be equated
with an appeal or a rehearing of the matter. A review can
be entertained where an error apparent on the face of the
record or any other legally recognized ground for review is
established. In the present case, no such error has been
demonstrated. The grounds urged by the Review Applicants
essentially seek reconsideration of the basis on which the
Original Application was disposed of and, therefore, do not
fall within the permissible scope of review.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.09.0 1
11:38:13
+05'30'
ANKIT
SAKL
ANI

8
M.A. No. 4010/2026
in
DY. No.8883/2026 (RA)
in
O.A. No. 810/2017


12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no sufficient
ground to review or recall the order dated 26.05.2026. The
Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed. It is,
however, clarified that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the applicants' substantive claim for
regularization or promotion.
13. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/

ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.09.0 1
11:38:13
+05'30'
ANKIT
SAKL
ANI