Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manju Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 21 July, 2025
Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2755/2025
No.
1st day of July, 2025
This the 21
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati,
Khati Member (A)
1. Manju Singh Sh.Nanak Chand
CFW Ward No 181, Molarband, CNZ
15020057 Also At: Vill.Kalwaka Po. Dhatir Dist.
Palwal HR, 121102.
2. Jitender Sh. Kale Singh
CFW, Ward No 181, Molarband, CNZ 15020480
Also At: 57/1 Numberdar Colony Sehatpur, FBD,
HR-121003
3. Jasbir Singh Lt.Sh. Santosh Kumar
CFW, Ward No 180, Badarpur, CNZ 15020476
Also At: H.No.1845 Ravidass Basti Kotla Mubarak
Pur Lodhi Road, ND- 110003
4. Dhyanendra Sh. Shishpal Singh
CFW, Ward No 184, Jaitpur, CNZ 15020482
Also At: Vill. Kadura, Post Salon
alon (B), Distt. Datia,
MP-475336
5. Sunil DuttSh.Sohan Lal CFW Ward No 181,
Molarband, CNZ 15020117 Also At: Vill. Kalwaka
Po. Dhatir Dist. Palwal HR121102
6. Rahul Sh. Pooran
CFW Ward No 181, Molarband, CNZ 40001629
H.No. E-24,
24, Lal Kuan, Punchmukhi Mandir,
Man M.B.
Road, Jaitpur Badarpur, South Delhi-44
Delhi
7. Saurabh Bhardwaj Sh. Mahavir Sharma
CFW Ward No 182 Om Vihar, CNZ-
CNZ 15020479
H.No.31 Gali No.12 Molarband New Delhi 110044
Page 1 of 11
Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025
8. Deepak Sh. Mohan Lal
CFW, Ward No 180, Badarpur, CNZ-40001665
CNZ
H.No.13, Vill. Kanwara Kala Jasana Road Po.
Badarpur Said FBD, Hr.121101
9. Surjeet Saini, Sh.Bir Singh
CFW, Ward No 180, Badarpur, CNZ-15020097
CNZ
H.No. 240/2, Fatehpur, Billoch, Faridabad,
Haryana- 121004.
10 Tejveer Sh. Bijan
CFW Ward No 181, Molarband, CNZ-40001666
CNZ
H.No.179 Lallu Ka Chota Thok Vill. Kotwan Dist.
Mathura U.p. 281403
11 Vikrant Sh. Madan Lal
CFW, Ward No 180, Badarpur, CNZ-40017400
CNZ
H.No.1889 J.J.Colony Phase 3 Madanpur Khadar
Sarita Vihar N.D-76
12 Ashok Nagar Sh. Tikam Singh
CFW Ward No 181, Molarband,
nd, CNZ 15020118
H.No.111 Molarband Village Badarpur New Delhi
110044
13 Pushkaran Sh. Ramdass
CFW Ward No 181, Molarband, CNZ-15020116
CNZ
H.No.122, Molarband Village Badarpur New Delhi
110044
14 Lekhram Sh. Budhram
CFW, Ward No 183, Hari Nagar Extn, CNZ-
CNZ
15020055
020055 H.No. 236, Ward No. 1, Koli Mohalla,
Near Shiv Mandir, Vill-Kalwaka,
Kalwaka, Dhatir (37),
Palwal, Haryana-121102,
15 Jagjeewan Lal Suryavanshi
Sh. Shyamlal Suryavanshi CFW, Ward No 183,
Hari Nagar Extn, CNZ-40001668
40001668 H.No. A-192,
A
Bilashpur, Camp, Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi-
44,
16 Akram Raja Lt. Varis
CFW, Ward No 185, M.P Khadar East, CNZ-
CNZ
Page 2 of 11
Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025
15020076 H.No154 Gali No.3 Near Masjid Ekta
Vihar Meethapur Badarpur New Delhi 110044
17 Deepak Sh. Sant Lal
CFW, Ward No 185, M.P Khadar East, CNZ-
CNZ
15020062 H.No. 322 A, Khizra Bad, Balmikimohlla,
New Firends Colony, Delhi-25.
25.
18 Manoj Haldar Lt.Sh. Mahananda HaldarCFW,
Ward No 185, M.P Khadar East, CNZ-15020032
CNZ
H.No. 880, B-2,
2, J.J. Colony, Madan Pur, Khadar,
Delhi-76.
19 Rajendra Singh Lt.Sh. Sohan Lal
CFW, Ward No 185, M.P Khadar East, CNZ-
CNZ
15020099 Patwari Post Bisharak Goutam Budh
Nagar, UP-203207
20 Dharmender Kumar Sh. Tarkeshwar Sah
CFW, Ward No 185, M.P Khadar East, CNZ-CNZ
15020083 H.No. 1489, Phase--III, Madan Pur,
Khadar Near Jaitpur Police Station, 110076
21 Sushil Kumar Sh. Ram Raj
CFW, Ward No 185, M.P Khadar East, CNZ-
CNZ
15020107 B1/1096 J.J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
South Delhi 110076
22 Kanwar Singh Sh. Dayaram
CFW, Ward No 183, Hari Nagar Extn, CNZ
40001685 H.No. 699, Mehlla, Mohalla, Madanpur
Khadar, Sarita Vihar, Delhi-110076.
110076.
23 Kamlesh Kumar Sh. Chander Shekhar
CFW, Ward No 185, MP Khadar East, CNZ
40001598 S-84/30
84/30 JJ Camp, Sriniwaspuri, ND-
ND
110065
24 Nardev Singh Sh. Amar Singh
CFW, Ward No 184, Jaitpur, CNZ 15020061
Vill.Kalwaka Po.Dhatir Distt. Palwal, HR,121102
25 Ruby W/O Sh. Sunil Kumar
CFW, Ward No 184, Jaitpur, CNZ 15018055
Page 3 of 11
Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025
H.No25, Gali No.2 D Block Hari Nagar, Jaitpur,
New Delhi
26 Vijay Kumar Sh. Parmod Kumar
CFW, Ward No 184, Jaitpur, CNZ-15020070
CNZ B-
1709 Jhuggi Jhopdi Sector 8 Noida Gautam
Ga Budhha
Nagar, U.P. 201301
27 Rakesh Shah Sh. Girish Shah
CFW, Ward No 184, Jaitpur, CNZ 15020066
H.No. 60, Gali No. 2/A, Ekta Vihar, Meethapur,
Extn, Delhi- 44.
28 Gaurav Awana Sh. Dhanpal Awana
CFW, Ward No 183, Hari Nagar Extn, CNZ
15020063 H.No. 83, Vill. Meethapur, Badarpur,
New Delhi-44,
29 Hemraj Sh. Mahipal
CFW, Ward No 180, Badarpur, CNZ-15020071
CNZ
Luhar Mohalla, Vill. Kalwaka Po.Dhatir Dist.
Palwal HR 121102
30 Suraj Semwal Sh. Girish Semwal
CFW DHO Office, CNZ, Lajpat Nagar 15020102
14, Galii No 8, D2 Shivpuri, Meethapur Extn,
Badarpur, ND -44
31 Lalit Awana Sh. Inderjeet Awana
CFW, Ward No.180, Badarpur CNZ-15020119
CNZ
H.No.105/B Meethapur Village New Delhi 110044
32 Ashish Kumar Jitendra Kumar
CFW, Ward No 180, Badarpur, CNZ-15020085
CNZ
H.No. G-1-37,
37, Gali No. 8, Main Masjid Waligali,
Sangam Vihar, Delhi-62.
33 Premchand Sh. Raja Ram
CFW Ward No.179 Pul Pehladpur-15020101
Pehladpur
Vill. Khambi Tehsil Hodal, Dist. Palwal, Hr121106
34 Badloo Ram Sh. Data Ram
CFW, Ward No 142, Dariyaganj, CNZ-15020010
CNZ
H.No.. 1043, G. Block, Jhuggi, Near MCD Primary
Page 4 of 11
Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025
School, Jahangir Puri, Delhi
35 Surender Singh Sh Mahadev Prasad
CFW, Ward No 100, Fateh Nagar, West Zone-
Zone
15017261 WZ-622/A,
622/A, Naangal Raya, South West
Delhi-110046
36 Sandeep Kumar Sh. Jagdish Chander Kohli
CFW, Ward No 103 Keshopur, WZ-15017243
WZ
5D/24 Vishnu Garden Extn., West Delhi 110018
37 Surender Kumar LT.Sh. Ram Rattan
CFW, Ward No 103 Keshopur, WZ-15014413
WZ
H.N. 268 Harpal Pradhan Wali Gali, Near Railway
Fatak Bhor Garh, North West Delhi -40
38 Nitesh Bhardwaj Sh. Tara Chand Sharma
12th Floor SPM Civic Centre, HQ/MCD-15020068
HQ/MCD
B 2/384, Yamuna Vihar North East 110053
39 Pankaj Sorot Sh. Hari Kishan
Ward No.151 Munirka South Zone-
Zone 15004655
H. No. 86/A, Hauz Khas Vill., New Delhi-110016.
Delhi
40 Vishal Sh. Azad
CFW,
FW, Ward No 151, Munirka Village, SZ
40002502 J-10,
10, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, I Block, New
Delhi-110034
41 Mukesh Kumar Sh. Attar Singh
Ward No 150, Green Park, South Zone 15017638
Prop No 457, KH No 451, Third Floor, Village
Nebsarai, ND-68
42 Rameshwer Sh. Kalluram
Ward No 184, Jaitpur, CNZ-15020065
15020065
H.N. 78, Mohala Saraiya, Near Shiv Mandir,
Khambi, Palwal, HR-121106
43 Sandeep Sh.Rajbir
Ward no. 179 pul pehladpur CNZ - 15020483
159 Hathon pahari palwal Haryana 121105
44 Sunil kumar Sh.Pyare Lal
Page 5 of 11
Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025
Ward no. 179 Pul Pehlad Pur CNZ - 40001666
Village ladpur Chhata Mathura Uttar Pradesh
281401
45 Punit bhadana S/O Sh.Mangal Singh
Ward no. 179 pul pehladpur CNZ - 15020039
Village paata Faridabad Haryana 121004
46 Ajay S/O Kalyan Singh
Ward no. 179 pul pehladpurr CNZ-40001661
CNZ
Maandkol Road near jaharveer mandir fathepur
Billoch, FBD, HR 121004
47 Parveen S/O Kamal Singh
Ward no. 179 pul pehladpur CNZ - 40001663
H.no.32/272 Sonia Gandhi Camp Badarpur south
Delhi 110044
48 Anil Bhadana S/O SHRI Dan singh
Ward no. 179 Pul Pehlad Pur CNZ - 15020053
Pawta Pali Douj Faridabad Hr 121004
49 Deepak S/O SHRI Jagdish
Ward nd Sangam vihar cnz -15020086
15020086
H.no.138F/F J.J colony khanpur po pushpa Bhawan,
South Delhi-110062
50 Uttam kumar Tanwar S/O SH.Jasmir Singh
Tanwar Ward no Sangam vihar cnz -15020096 J-
3/212 DDA flats Kalkaji, South Delhi 110019.
110019
...Applicantss
(By Advocates: Mr. Pawan K Bahl)
Bahl
Versus
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIO NEW DELHI-
110002.
...Respondent
.Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Sinha)
Sinha
---
Page 6 of 11
Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):--
The Registry has raised an objection that the present O.A. is premature premature, as the representation of the applicants dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure A1) is pending with the respondents and yet to attain finality. Such objection is also raised by learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance service.
2. In the present esent Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"i)
i) To direct the respondents to give the same salary as being paid to the regular employees of same post as per the various judgements and even on basis of admission in reply to RTI that the both are doing similar duties;
ii) To direct the respondent to give pay and other allowances as given to regular employees as per law laid down by this tribunal and High CoCourt and as respondent give benefit and arrears from the date of their appointment as per the judgements of this hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme court;
iii) To allow the application and pass any other suitable order as deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case;"
case;
3. Though under the Administrative Tribunals Act Act, 1985, the Tribunal is competent to adjudicate matters relating to service conditions of public servants, it is essential that there exists an order or decision which forms the basis of the grievance brought before the Tribunal. However, if such an order already provides for a statutory remedy under the law, the mere act of making a representation and Page 7 of 11 Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025 obtaining a reasoned response does not, by itself, constitute an alte alternative rnative statutory remedy as contemplated under the law.
Therefore, it must be determined whether the remedy available is truly an alternative statutory remedy within the meaning of the Act or merely an administrative response lacking the force of a statuto statutory appeal or revision.
4. Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel, appears on advance service on behalf of the respondents. He raises an objection qua the limitation.
5. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the records of the case.
6. In Civil Appeal no.___/2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6289/2019 titled as The Chief Executive Officer & Ors. vs. S. Lalitha & Ors Ors, the Apex Court observed as under:
under "29. Coming back to Section 20, the purport of the opening words of sub sub-
section (2) read with sub-section section (1) thereof, which we have highlighted above, leaves no manner of doubt that the word "remedies" referred to therein, used as a noun, mean the "remedies" that are statutorily available as to redressal of grievances under the relevant service rules.
rules. However, in a case where the service rules do not provide any scope for representation to be made, the aggrieved public servant without making an unprovided for representation, i.e., a non-statutory statutory representation, and without waiting for its disposal, l, may approach the CAT directly challenging the order/action that has prejudicially affected his right and left him aggrieved; and, if any objection as to non-exhaustion exhaustion of remedy before the departmental authorities is raised before the CAT by the authorities, authorities, the same can well be countered by urging that the service rules do not provide any statutory remedy by way of a representation to the departmental authorities against the order/action under challenge.
30. There could, however, be innumerable cases where where formal orders may Page 8 of 11 Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025 not exist affecting the rights of public servants covered by the 1985 Act but affectation of their rights could arise out of silence or inaction of the employer to confer an otherwise legitimate benefit. What is the recourse availablee in such a case? In such cases, it is eminently desirable that steps be first taken by the public servant to invite the attention of the employer to such affectation (2010) 12 SCC 301 of rights for the same to be addressed by the employer. Suppose, a public public servant is due for promotion or is due for a pay raise or claims entitlement to any service benefit which, according to him, is due but the employer has remained silent or inactive in not giving the public servant what is due to him. In such cases, the only way of espousing one's grievance is through a representation bringing to the notice of the employer that grant of the service benefit, though due, has not been considered and that the grievance be redressed. If the grievance is not redressed despite receiving eceiving the representation and despite expiry of the period mentioned in sub-section section (2) of Section 20 of the 1985 Act, in such cases, the CAT cannot throw out an original application by holding that the remedy by way of a representation is not provided in in the service rules. However, the public servant has to be cautious and take care not to wait indefinitely for espousing his grievance from the date affectation of his right begins. If he does wait indefinitely, he does so at his own peril.
31. Or, take a case where there is no employer-employee employer employee relationship yet, viz., the case of an aspirant for public employment who participates in the selection process but turns out to be unsuccessful. Should he have any grievance in relation to the process and seeks to to challenge the same, he may do so immediately before accrual of third party rights; or, he may first represent and if there be no response or any response which does not address his grievance, he may apply before the CAT under Section 19 of the 1985 Act within ithin the prescribed period of limitation. However, if there is delay and third party rights accrue, the delay has to be explained and condonation sought.
32. Reading Section 20 as we have interpreted it above with the guiding light provided by S.S. Rathore re (supra) and M.K. Sarkar (supra), we need to consider whether the O.A. filed by the respondent before the Tribunal was within time or not.
33. The respondent did not in the O.A. plead and indicate the specific provision in the service rules in terms whereof whereof she sought relief from the 3rd appellant by filing the representation dated 4th October, 2016. In the absence of such pleading, one has to proceed on the premise that she had made the representation on her own without the same being provided under any service rules applicable to her and, in that sense, it was a non non-statutory representation. The period of limitation could not have been stretched by the respondent by asserting that rejection of her non non-statutory representation resulted in accrual of the cause of action for moving the Tribunal.
34. To summarise the legal position, what assumes cruciality in cases, such as these, is whether the representation that has been made and rejected, whereafter the jurisdiction of the CAT is invoked, is statutorily provided in the service rules governing the applicant-public applicant public servant. Bare reading of the opening words of Section 20 of the 1985 Act with sub-section sub section (1), which requires exhaustion of other available remedies as a general precondition Page 9 of 11 Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025 for entertaining original iginal applications under Section 19, refers to remedies that are available under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances against final orders. If the relevant service rules do not provide for making of a representation against final orders, orders, by reason of absence of such a provision, the remedy of the aggrieved applicant-public applicant-public servant would lie directly before the CAT in challenging the order/action of the authorities adverse or prejudicial to his interest; and, in such a case, an original application ought not to be rejected mechanically on the ground that all "remedies" have not been exhausted. However, it cannot be gainsaid that if the relevant service rules do provide for making of a representation, the remedy made available has to be exhausted exhausted unless an exceptional case is set up. Provision made in the service rules, if at all, for making of a statutory representation, timing of such representation and whether the representation raises a "stale" or "dead" claim - all these are relevant for or deciding the question of limitation under the 1985 Act. The opening words of Section 20 read with sub-section sub section (2) thereof would, however, call for a nuanced approach. As observed earlier, a representation though not provided in the relevant rules govern governing service could yet be necessary and imperative when a legitimate service benefit is not conferred on the aggrieved applicant-public applicant public servant by the employer on his own either due to inaction or otherwise. In such a case, the representation inviting attention attention to what the aggrieved applicant applicant-public servant perceives is deprivation of a legitimate benefit has to be made expeditiously and before accrual of third-party third party rights, if any. Such a representation could be made even after accrual of third-party third party right rights, but within a reasonable time of the same coming to the notice of the aggrieved applicant-public public servant. What would constitute reasonable time would necessarily depend on the facts of each particular case and decided accordingly.
35. We hold that exceptt in cases where final orders are passed on appeals/revisions/memorials/representations which are statutorily provided, limitation for the purpose of filing an original application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act, in view of the above-referred above referred decisions aand Sections 21 and 20 thereof, has to be reckoned keeping in mind the date of accrual of the cause of action and the proximity of the date of the representation, and the period of one year for filing an original application has to be counted from the date of expiry of six months from date of such a representation if no order were passed thereon. Needless to observe, the cause of action cannot be deferred by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome. We also make it clear that different considerations would arise in a case of a continuous wrong, which has to be decided in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh24.
36. On such premise as explained above, the respondent should have, if she felt aggrieved by the action of the appellants of granting her benefits of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme instead of the ACP Scheme, availed the remedy before the Tribunal immediately after her rights were affected. She ought not to have waited for so long for for ventilating her grievance through a belated representation. Filing of such belated representation, which was rejected in no time, did not have the effect of postponing the cause of action and stretching the period of limitation so as to render the O.A. as filed within time.
Page 10 of 11Item No.10 (Court -5) O.A. No.2755/2025
37. Both fora, i.e., the Tribunal as well as the High Court, did not rule on the objection of maintainability of the O.A. despite such objection being sound. The reasons that we have assigned would lead to the irresistible conclusion 2008 INSC 930 = (2008) 8 SCC 648 that the O.A. was time time- barred and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal. The High Court too erred in law by failing to entertain the challenge to the Tribunal's order on the specious ground that the decision decision in B.D. Kadam (supra) covered the issue without, however, examining whether the O.A. was maintainable."
7. In view of the above,, Registry is directed to assign the number to the present application.
8. We deem it proper that since a representation is pending for consideration, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party, the said pending representation of the applicants dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure A1) be decided by the competent authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Consequential relief, if any, may also flow within 45 days thereafter. We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the case.
9. With the above directions, the Original Application is disposed of at the admission stage.
stage All pending MAs, s, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
accordingly No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 11 of 11