Claims for Pay Parity Arising After Post-Tribunal Superannuation Must Be Initially Adjudicated Before the Tribunal

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Law Officers (ALOs) in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation in 2011 on a "current duty charge" basis against vacancies from 2004 and 2007

They remained in these positions until their superannuation in October 2025 and June 2026

During their tenure, they twice challenged advertisements for direct recruitment/contractual filling of their posts before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

In the second instance (OA 4643/2015), the Tribunal dismissed their plea for regularization on grounds of res judicata and delay

While the writ was pending, the petitioners retired, shifting their claim toward pay protection and retiral benefits commensurate with regular employees

1. Whether the petitioners, having served on current duty charge for over a decade until retirement, are entitled to pay protection and retiral benefits at par with regular employees

2. Whether the High Court can adjudicate on fresh claims for service benefits that were not first determined by the Central Administrative Tribunal

The Court primarily applied the jurisdictional mandate established by the Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which held that Tribunals are the "courts of first instance" for service matters and litigants cannot approach High Courts directly without first exhausting the Tribunal's jurisdiction

Regarding the substantive claim for pay protection, the petitioners relied on the principles of service law equity and precedents such as Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, which deal with the rights of long-term ad-hoc or officiating employees

The Court noted that while the petitioners had retired during the pendency of the writ, they now sought pay protection based on long-term service

The Court found itself "handicapped" by the rule in L. Chandra Kumar, which prohibits the High Court from acting as a court of first instance in service disputes

Since the specific plea for pay protection (as opposed to the original plea for regularization) had not been raised before or addressed by the CAT, the High Court could not rule on its merits

The Court reasoned that the proper course of action is for the retirees to file a fresh original proceeding before the Tribunal to ventilate these specific grievances

The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal with an appropriate original proceeding

The Court requested the Tribunal to deal with any such matter with "due expedition" given the petitioners' status as retirees

All questions of fact and law were left open for adjudication before the Tribunal