Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunil Kumar vs M/O Urban Development on 10 April, 2026
1 OA No.3645/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.3645/2016
Order reserved on: 19.03.2026
Order pronounced on: 10.04.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Sunil Kumar, Beldar, Group-D
presently posted in ODD,
Sub-Division-2,
Aged About 54 years,
S/o Sh. Hari Krishan Sharma,
R/o 13/6, Block-A-1, Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi-110084
2. Karamvir, Khalasi-ED-9, Group-D,
Sub-Division-II,
Aged About 52 years,
S/o Sh. Jay Narayan,
R/o H15 Maha Laxmi Garden,
Near Railway Station, Gurgaon, Haryana
3. Sumesh Chandra, Khalasi, Group-D,
ED-11, Sub-Division-6,
Aged About 52 years,
S/o Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/o RZ-202, Roshan Garden,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043
4. Abhay Pal Bhardwaj, Khalasi, Group-D
ED-11, Sub-Division-5,
Aged About 52 years,
S/o Sh. Ved Ram,
R/o A-226-227, Kutub Vihar, Goyla Dairy,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043
5. Kilob Singh, Khalasi, ACD-3, Group-D,
Sub-Division-3,
Aged About 55 years,
S/o Sh. Jai Narayan,
R/o M-15, Maha Laxmi Garden, Ward No. 7,
Railway Station, Gurgaon, Haryana
6. Ram Bhool, Division (DAD), Group-D
Aged About 47 years,
SUNITA 2026.04.13
DUTT 16:13:38+05'30'
2 OA No.3645/2016
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh,
R/o 362, Gali No. 4B, Hari Nagar,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
...Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General (Works),
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan)
ORDER
Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) The present OA has been filed by the Applicants, six in number, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"(i) To declare the action of respondents in not fixing the pay of applicants and granting benefit of Old Pension Scheme at par with their juniors / Petitioners in CP No. 926/2014 & 930/2014 in OA No. 902/2000 & 903/2000 as illegal and unjustified and direct the respondents to fix the pay of applicants at par with their juniors and grant the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to applicants as granted to their juniors.
(ii) To direct the respondents to grant temporary status to the applicants as granted to juniors vide order dated 23.12.2014 and fixed their pay on regularization at par with their juniors and governed the applicants claim under Old Pension Scheme.
SUNITA 2026.04.13
DUTT 16:13:38+05'30'
3 OA No.3645/2016
(iii) to allow the OA with cost.
(iv) pass any further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The applicants were appointed as Beldar, Driver Motor Lorry Driver (MLD) and Wiremen on various dates starting from 26.11.1988 till 23.09.1989. It is their claim that they were appointed after following due process of recruitment against sanctioned posts. The respondents granted them temporary status vide order dated 29.09.1994, as per Government of India OM dated 10.09.1993. However, soon after the respondents realised that the applicants were granted temporary status erroneously and against the policy of the Government as per the aforementioned OM, the respondents withdrew the temporary status from the present applicants in January 1995. The reasons for withdrawing the temporary status was given in respondents order dated 20.01.1995.
2.2 Applicants No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 filed OA No.401/2001 before this Tribunal for regularisation of their services. This Tribunal disposed the said OA directing the respondents to consider regularisation of the applicants therein as per extant policy for regularisation. The respondents considered their cases and the applicants therein were informed that their SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 4 OA No.3645/2016 regularisation would be considered on availability of clear vacancies.
2.3 Applicants No.5 & 6 alongwith others again filed OA No. 267/2004 seeking regularisation against a Group 'D post. At that time, applicant No.5 was working as casual worker Group 'C' and he was found ineligible for regularisation. The Tribunal vide order dated 02.11.2004 disposed of the said OA directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant as per rules. The applicant challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 20155/2004. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 11.07.2004 directed the respondents to consider their case as per the Apex Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The respondents considered the case of applicant No.6 and informed that as per seniority he could not be regularised as there were 128 senior casual workers above him. However, Govt. of India issued guidelines vide OM dated 11.12.2006 for regularisation of casual workers who had rendered services for 10 years or more, subject to fulfilling eligibility conditions. While the 2nd Respondent tried to regularise applicants No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 against Group 'C' post of MLD/Wireman, the said applicants failed to acquire HMV Driving Licences/Wireman Licences. However, the respondents, taking a lenient view, SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 5 OA No.3645/2016 considered their request for appointment against Group 'D' posts. They had given the undertaking that they had no objection if they were regularised in Group 'D' posts (Annexure R-13 colly.). They were regularised in Group 'C' post w.e.f. 11.12.2006.
2.4 The present applicants claim that they came to know that some juniors and similarly placed employees filed OA No. 902/2000 and OA No. 903/2000, which were disposed of by common order dated 09.08.2001 by directing the respondents to consider their cases for granting temporary status. The applicants were granted temporary status vide order dated 23.12.2014 w.e.f. 01.09.1993 and granted consequential benefits. Learning about this action of the respondents, the present applicants represented to the respondents (Annexure- A-6) during March 2015. Thereafter the applicants are reiterating their claim from time to time through CPWD Karmachari Union and also through legal notice on 11.03.2016. As the respondents have not responded to their representations, the applicants have filed the present OA seeking aforementioned relief.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply, to which the applicants also filed their rejoinder.
SUNITA 2026.04.13
DUTT 16:13:38+05'30'
6 OA No.3645/2016
4. Submission by learned counsel for the applicants 4.1 The learned counsel for the applicants reiterated the pleadings in the OA and drew attention to the factual position of the case as described by the applicants in their pleadings. The sole ground submitted by the learned counsel is that the applicants are similarly placed as the applicants in OA Nos.902/2000 and 903/2000. Accordingly, the respondents should have refixed the pay of the applicants at par with their juniors by granting temporary status w.e.f. 1993 with all consequential benefits, including benefit of Old Pension Scheme.
4.2 In support of the claim of the applicants, the learned counsel for the applicants cites judgment dated 06.02.2024 in WP(C) No. 1691/2024 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that when a person was regularised after spending significant period as daily wage worker, such casual period should be counted for pensionary benefits.
5. Submission by learned counsel for the respondents 5.1 The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present OA is not maintainable on the following grounds;
(i) Mis- joinder of parties;
SUNITA 2026.04.13
DUTT 16:13:38+05'30'
7 OA No.3645/2016
(ii) Inordinate delay in filing the present OA after the
withdrawal of Temporary Status to the present applicants vide order dated 20.01.1995;
(iii) Inordinate delay and acquiescence of their regularisation in 2011.
(iv) No order of the respondents has been impugned vide which the applicants were aggrieved;
(v) Significant concealment of facts; and
(vi) Application of Principle of res judicata. 5.2 The applicants had also filed MA No.3188/2016 for joining together to file the present OA under Rule 4 (5) (a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. This Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2016 has allowed the said MA. In view of this, the objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents qua misjoinder of parties is overruled.
5.3 Inordinate delay in filing the present OA: (ii) and (iii) 5.4 Drawing attention to the relief paragraph as contained in paragraph 8 of the OA, the learned counsel for the respondents states that in effect the applicants are seeking temporary status from 1993. The applicants were wrongly granted temporary status from 1993 vide order dated 29.09.1994 (for applicant No.1) and order dated 09.11.1994 (for applicant No.6). Similar orders were issued for other applicants. However, the respondents after realising the SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 8 OA No.3645/2016 erroneous grant of temporary status, withdrew the same from the present applicants vide order dated 20.01.1995. The applicants had not challenged the said withdrawal order and now cleverly demanding temporary status from 1993. In effect, they are challenging the order of the respondents dated 20.01.1995, without filing any application for condonation of delay.
Similarly, the applicants were regularised vide order dated 30.06.2011 and they have not challenged the said order which were effective from that date. Now claiming temporary status from 1993 and seeking benefit of Old Pension Scheme prevalent prior to 01.01.2004, the applicants are challenging the said regularisation orders qua the dates from which applicants were regularised. Again, the cause of action arose in 2011 and the applicants are seeking regularisation (consequential benefit of temporary status from 1993) without filing application for condonation of delay. 5.5 There is no effective rebuttal from the learned counsel for the applicants in respect of the above averment by the learned counsel for the respondents. Neither the order dated 20.01.1995 vide which the grant of temporary status to the applicants had been withdrawn nor the regularisation vide order dated 30.06.2011 had been challenged. The cause of action arose in 1993, as the applicants are seeking temporary SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 9 OA No.3645/2016 status from 1993. There is no prayer for condonation of delay either, nor any explanation has come forth for agitating their alleged rights with inordinate delay. Accordingly, we agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the present OA suffers from the vice of delay and laches. On this count alone, the present OA deserves to be dismissed. 5.6 Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the fact that the orders withdrawing temporary status from applicants were issued on 20.01.1995. They were regularised vide order dated 30.06.2011. The alleged juniors were regularised vide order dated 17.12.2014. If the applicants were aggrieved by any of these orders, they should have challenged these orders raising appropriate grievances vis-a-vis these orders. The applicants have failed to impugn any of these orders.
5.7 Again, there is no effective rebuttal to these submissions by the learned counsel for the applicants. However, non- impugning relevant orders would be considered when the OA is adjudicated on merits in subsequent paras. 5.8 The learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present OA on the ground that the applicants have not come to this Tribunal with clean hands. They have concealed the facts like:
SUNITA 2026.04.13
DUTT 16:13:38+05'30'
10 OA No.3645/2016
(a) Withdrawal of temporary status vide order dated
20.1.1995
(b) Previous OAs filed - Particularly applicants No.1, 2 ,3, 5
and 6 filed OA No.401/2001, and applicant Nos.5 & 6 again filed OA No. 267/2004, WP (C) No. 20155/2004 and the orders thereof by the respondents.
(c) Undertaking by some of them that they accepted regularisation against Group 'D' posts as there was no scope for their regularisation in Group 'C' due to non-production of required valid Driving/Wiremen Licences. None of these facts have been mentioned in the pleadings of the applicants. All these facts had been mentioned in the counter reply filed by the respondents. These had not been controverted by the applicants in their rejoinder. In view of this allegation by the learned counsel that the applicants have not approached this Tribunal with clean hands is proved. We take this matter at the time of adjudication of the matter on merits.
5.9 The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the applicants sought regularisation including temporary status from 1993 in the aforementioned OAs. These OAs were disposed of by this Tribunal directing the respondents to consider their regularisation. The respondents have considered the grievances of the applicants and informed SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 11 OA No.3645/2016 them of their decisions. However, the applicants have not challenged the decisions of the respondents. Instead, they have raised the same issue under the garb of seeking temporary status from 1993 and consequential benefits. Hence, the applicants are prohibited to wreck the same issue by praying the same thing in different language. In effect they are seeking the same relief which they sought in the previously filed OAs (OA No.401/2001 and OA No. 267/2004).
5.10 The learned counsel for the respondents has not produced the copies of the previous OAs and the orders passed by the respondents in pursuance to orders passed in the said OAs. In view of this, it is difficult to come to a definite finding that the present OA suffers on account of principle of constructive res judicata. Nevertheless, the concealment of the facts regarding the OAs and the actions taken by the respondents in pursuance of the respective orders has a definite bearing towards granting relief to the present applicants.
6. The submissions by learned counsels on merits and citation by learned counsel for the applicants 6.1 The learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the factual position as mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and states that the applicants did not fulfil SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 12 OA No.3645/2016 the conditions as per OM dated 10.09.1993 for granting temporary status to the casual/daily wage employees working in various organisations. As they were erroneously granted temporary status, vide order dated 20.01.1995, the respondents withdrew temporary status from the present applicants. The applicants have not challenged this order. Hence, they acquiesced to this order and they cannot take an about turn and claim temporary status from 1993 at this belated stage. The applicants were never appointed against regular vacancies nor were they recruited through any regular selection process. They were employed on casual basis and never fulfilled the eligibility conditions for getting the benefit of grant of temporary status. When the Government decided to regularise daily wage/ad hoc employees based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) case, followed by DO&PT OM, dated 11.12.2006, the applicants were regularised. At that time the applicants never raised the issue of granting temporary status from 1993 and consequential benefits.
6.2 The learned counsel for the respondents further cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs Mohan Pal, 2002 (4) SCC 573, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that grant of temporary status was a onetime measure and was not an ongoing Scheme. Government of India vide OM SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 13 OA No.3645/2016 dated 26.02.2016 reiterated the same position that the employees who were in position as on 10.09.1993 and fulfilled the conditions of eligibility were granted temporary status. The present applicants were not recruited through employment exchange nor have they fulfilled other eligibility conditions. Accordingly, the temporary status, which was granted to them erroneously, was withdrawn. Moreover, some of the applicants were Group 'D' casual workers and others were Group 'C' casual workers. The temporary status was granted only to the Group 'D' employees who fulfilled required eligibility conditions. Applicant Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were skilled casual workers working as MLD whereas Applicant No.5 was Skilled Casual worker as Wireman. All these applicants were in Casual Group 'C' employees. Temporary status was granted only to casual Group 'D' employees fulfilling eligibility conditions. These applicants cannot claim temporary status in Group 'D' when they worked as Group 'C' casual worker and paid remuneration accordingly.
7. Analysis 7.1 The factual position, as detailed in preceding paragraphs, was culled out from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, not specifically controverted by the applicants. As we have stated earlier, the applicants have not SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 14 OA No.3645/2016 approached this Tribunal with clean hands. Substantial facts concerning their employment, granting and subsequent withdrawal of temporary status, undertaking to accept regularisation against group 'D' posts, filing of previous OAs and orders in pursuance of the respective orders in the OAs have been concealed or omitted by the applicants. 7.2 Concealment of vital facts concerning the particular litigation attracts the doctrine of clean hands. Full and candid disclosure is equally necessary to enable the Courts/Tribunals to adjudicate effectively. Any fact that has a direct bearing on the decision of the Court, or which may influence the outcome of the case, qualifies as a material fact. In the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants have concealed the aforementioned material facts which are essential for adjudication of the present case. 7.3 Doctrine of clean hands emphasizes the necessity for applicants to present themselves with full honesty and transparency while approaching the Courts/Tribunals. In the instant case, it is our considered view that the applicants have actively and deliberately suppressed or misrepresented facts that are material to this case. Some of the concealments pertain to the domain of passive concealment by remaining silent about material facts when it was their bounden duty to disclose the same.
SUNITA 2026.04.13
DUTT 16:13:38+05'30'
15 OA No.3645/2016
The doctrine of clean hands requires that "He who seeks equity must do equity."
7.4 In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court emphasized that Courts are meant to impart justice between parties, and those who come to court must do so with clean hands. The case highlighted that individuals attempting to abuse the legal process by concealing facts should be summarily dismissed from the proceedings. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Supreme Court lamented the decline in societal values, particularly truthfulness, and condemned the increasing use of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in litigation. The Court reinforced that those who seek justice must act with integrity and honesty. 7.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh (supra) held that:
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 16 OA No.3645/2016 challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
xxx xxx xxx
4. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Governor of Karnataka and another AIR 1991 SC 1726, the Court denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed:
Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non- disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions."
xxx xxx xxx
22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We would have saddled the appellants with exemplary costs but, keeping in view the fact that possession of the surplus land was taken in 2002 and the same has been distributed among landless poor persons, we refrain from doing so."
7.6 As discussed above, in the instant case, the applicants have concealed directly or passively the material facts for adjudication of the case in a proper manner. 7.7 The applicants are claiming temporary status at par with their alleged juniors who were given such benefits vide order dated 17.12.2014. The applicants have failed to bring the documentary evidence regarding the advertisement, their SUNITA 2026.04.13 DUTT 16:13:38+05'30' 17 OA No.3645/2016 enrolment with employment exchange, their seniority vis-a-vis the alleged juniors, any specific document to prove that they were seniors to the alleged juniors like Sh. Dharam Pal and Sh. Mahesh Kumar to claim parity with the beneficiaries of order dated 17.12.2014.
8. Conclusion 8.1 In view of the above analysis, the applicants have failed to prove their case on merit. In addition, the applicants have not approached this Tribunal with clean hands to claim the relief as prayed in paragraph 8 of the OA. The OA is hopelessly time barred as the cause of action arose on 20.01.1995 when their temporary status was withdrawn, Moreover, they have deliberately not challenged the orders passed by the respondents in pursuance to the orders passed in OA No.401/2001 and OA No. 267/2004.
8.2 In view of the above, the present OA is dismissed on account of limitation as well as being devoid of merit.
9. No order as to costs.
10. All pending MAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'SD'
SUNITA 2026.04.13
DUTT 16:13:38+05'30'
18 OA No.3645/2016
SUNITA 2026.04.13
DUTT 16:13:38+05'30'