Tribunals must examine cases on merits as Courts of first instance rather than adjourning matters pending contempt proceedings.

The petitioners filed Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization of their services

The CAT, noting that a contempt petition regarding similar issues (Sonia Gandhi v. GNCTD) was pending before the Delhi High Court, declined to adjudicate the merits. Instead, it closed the OAs, granting the petitioners liberty to revisit the Tribunal after the outcome of the High Court's contempt proceedings

The petitioners challenged this closure via the present writ petitions, contending that subsequent High Court rulings in Pawan Sharma and NDMC v. Kalpana Sharma had already resolved the legal position in favor of similarly situated employees

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in closing the OAs without adjudicating on merits solely due to a pending contempt petition in a related matter

2. Whether the High Court should decide the merits of the regularization claim as a court of first instance

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which establishes that Tribunals are the courts of first instance for service matters and the High Court should not bypass this hierarchy

State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi regarding the underlying principles of regularization

Pawan Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and New Delhi Municipal Council v. Kalpana Sharma

The High Court observed that the Tribunal failed to examine the merits of the petitioners' claims, effectively leaving the OAs undecided

While the Tribunal demurred from taking an independent view during the pendency of contempt proceedings, the High Court emphasized that under the doctrine established in L. Chandra Kumar, the Tribunal must act as the forum of first instance before the High Court can apply its mind to the cause

The Court noted that even if the Tribunal found the issue complicated, it was duty-bound to adjudicate. Consequently, rather than deciding the regularization claim itself, the Court determined it necessary to restore the matters to the Tribunal for a fresh, expeditious hearing where the petitioners could argue the applicability of favorble precedents like Pawan Sharma

The Court directed the Registry of the Tribunal to list the matters on May 18, 2026, and ordered the parties not to seek adjournments, given that the case involves service regularization. The Tribunal was requested to dispose of the matters expeditiously