Entitlement to Actual Regularisation Benefits Arises Immediately Upon Expiry of Court-Mandated Compliance Deadline

The petitioner is 70% disabled in both lower limbs and joined the Delhi Transport Corporation ("DTC") as a water server on 5 May 1987; his appointment was extended till 30 November 1991

In 2012, he filed OA 2366/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") seeking regularisation, which was disposed of on 6 September 2013 with a direction to the DTC to consider his regularisation against existing direct recruit vacancies and to prepare a scheme, within three months

The DTC challenged this order before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 799/2014, which was disposed of on 17 November 2016; the Court declined to interfere with the regularisation direction, clarified that no petitioner-specific scheme need be prepared, and granted the DTC two months to comply

The DTC regularised the petitioner's services on 17 October 2017 but granted the regular pay scale only prospectively from that date

The petitioner then moved the Tribunal (OA 313/2013) seeking antedating of regularisation to 6 September 2013

By judgment dated 12 December 2022, the Tribunal directed regularisation effective 6 December 2013 (i.e., the expiry of three months from the disposal of OA 2366/2012), but with only notional benefits from that date

The DTC did not challenge the Tribunal's order, rendering it binding on the DTC

The petitioner then approached the High Court in the present writ petition, claiming actual benefits, including the regular pay scale, with effect from 6 December 2013

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to actual benefits consequent upon regularisation with effect from 6 December 2013 (the antedated date fixed by the Tribunal), or only from some later date

2. Whether the DTC's grant of actual benefits only from 17 October 2017 (the date of the regularisation order) is legally sustainable, given the timelines fixed by the Tribunal and the High Court

the doctrine of finality of unchallenged orders: the Tribunal's judgment dated 12 December 2022, not having been challenged by the DTC, is binding on it

where a superior court is seized of a challenge to a tribunal's direction and grants fresh time for compliance, the court-granted timeline supersedes the tribunal's original deadline

where an employer fails to comply with a regularisation direction within the time fixed by the court and obtains no extension, the employee becomes entitled to actual benefits upon the expiry of the court-granted compliance period, and the employer cannot defer benefits to the date of its own delayed administrative order

The Court held that the petitioner's actual entitlement arises neither from 6 September/December 2013 nor from 17 October 2017

The Tribunal's order of 6 September 2013 was subsumed by the DTC's challenge before the High Court, which, by judgment dated 17 November 2016, granted the DTC a fresh two-month window to effect regularisation; that window expired on 17 January 2017

having received no extension of time from the High Court, the DTC's failure to regularise by 17 January 2017 was unjustified delay; it could not unilaterally push actual benefits to the date of its own order, 17 October 2017

The Court directed the DTC to disburse to the petitioner the benefits flowing from regularisation (previously granted with effect from 17 October 2017) additionally for the period 17 January 2017 to 17 October 2017. Payments are to be disbursed within eight weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum until actual payment