Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/10698/2015 of SHANTI DEVI & ANR Vs ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA on 19 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 19th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC015649582015 + W.P.(C) 10698/2015 SHANTI DEVI & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Bhumica Kundra, Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Ms. Tanya Rose, Ms. Kritika Matta, Mr. Pradeep Kumar,
$~26
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 19th August, 2026
CNR No. DLHC015649582015
+
W.P.(C) 10698/2015
SHANTI DEVI & ANR
.....Petitioners
Through:
Mr.
Anuj
Aggarwal,
Ms.
Bhumica Kundra, Mr. Shubham
Bahl, Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Ms.
Tanya Rose, Ms. Kritika Matta,
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Anjali
Bansal, Mr. Lovekesh Chauhan,
Mr. Manas Verma & Mr.
Shakib Malik, Advs.
versus
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC with
Ms. Katyayani Joshi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing award dated 04.03.2014 (hereinafter ‘impugned award’ passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 45/2000 whereby the learned Tribunal granted ₹50,000 as compensation to each of the petitioners, in lieu of reinstatement.
2. The petitioners are essentially aggrieved that the amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is insufficient.
3. It is pertinent to note that the award passed by the learned Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Date:19.08.2026 20:02:14 Signature Not Verified
Tribunal has been accepted by the respondent department, therefore, it remains undisputed that the petitioners were working as daily wagers, for the respondent, between the years 1983 and 1997, equating to a period of more than 14 years, before being terminated.
4. The learned Tribunal held that the management, without any fault of the petitioners, illegally terminated their services, only on verbal notice. Thus, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of ₹50,000/- to each of the Petitioners.
5. In the opinion of this Court, the said amount of compensation is not adequate. At the same time, it is relevant to note that the claim against the illegal termination was raised belatedly by the petitioners, after more than 17 months of their termination, on 31.05.1999. Further, the petitioners approached this Court after more than one and a half years of passing of the impugned award.
6. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if the compensation amount is enhanced to ₹2,00,000/-, to each of the Petitioners.
7. The amount of ₹2,00,000/-, however, shall not contain any interest and shall be paid by the respondent within a period of eight weeks.
8. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms and the impugned award is modified to that extent. AMIT MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 19, 2026 “SS” Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Date:19.08.2026 20:02:14 Signature Not Verified