W.P.(C)/8198/2023 of SHRI BABU LAL BUNKER Vs THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. on 24 July 2026

1. The petitioner is 70% disabled in both lower limbs. He joined as a water server in the Delhi Transport Corporation1 on 5 May 1987. By order dated 9 November 1987, his appointment was extended till 30 November 1991.

2. In 2012, the petitioner filed OA 2366/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal2, seeking regularisation. By order dated 6 September 2013, the Tribunal disposed of OA 2366/2012 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation against existing direct recruit vacancies, and prepare a 1 “DTC” hereinafter

KUMAR VATS

scheme in that regard. These directions were to be complied with, within a period of three months from 6 September 2013.

3. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the DTC before this Court by way of WP (C) 799/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of, by this Court, on 17 November 2016. The operative paragraph of the said decision reads thus:

“12. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the direction of regularization in the impugned order which is just and fair. However, we clarify that the petitioner-Corporation need not prepare a scheme which is applicable to the respondent alone. The petitioner corporation will comply with the direction for regularization within a period of two months from today.”

4. The DTC regularised the petitioner’s services vide order dated 17 October 2017, but granted him the regular pay scale consequent thereto only prospectively from the said date.

5. The petitioner, thereupon, moved the Tribunal by OA 313/2013, for antedating his regularisation to 6 September 2013.

6. By judgment dated 12 December 2022, the Tribunal has directed that the regularisation would take effect from 6 December 2013, i.e. on the expiry of three months from the date of disposal of OA 2366/2012 by the Tribunal, but that the benefits available to the respondents would only be notional from that date.

7. The DTC has not chosen to challenge the order passed by the 2 “Tribunal” hereinafter

KUMAR VATS

Tribunal, which is, therefore, binding on the DTC.

8. The petitioner has, however, approached this Court, challenging the said order on the ground that he was entitled to actual benefits including the regular pay scale attached to the post on which he was regularised with effect from 6 December 2013 and that the Tribunal erred in granting only notional benefits.

9. We have heard Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the DTC.

10. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner would be entitled to actual benefits consequent on regularisation with effect from 6 September 2013. The benefits, we may note, were granted by the DTC, but with effect from 17 October 2017.

11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that the actual entitlement of the petitioner would neither be from 6 September 2013 nor from 17 October 2017.

12. The order dated 6 September 2013 passed by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in WP(C) 779/2014, which came to be disposed of by judgment dated 17 November 2016, the operative paragraph of which we have already reproduced supra. That judgment extended the time available with the DTC for regularising the services of the petitioner by a period of two months from the date

KUMAR VATS

of the judgment of the High Court. The said period of two months came to an end on 17 January 2017. As such, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim actual benefits of regularisation with effect from 6 December 2013. Notional benefits from that date have already been granted by the Tribunal, and the DTC has not chosen to challenge the said decision. Mr. Chatterjee submits that the DTC has complied with the decision insofar as it granted notional benefits are concerned.

13. So far as the entitlement of the petitioner to actual benefits is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to actual benefits consequent on regularisation with effect from 17 January 2017, when the period of two months granted by this Court by its judgment dated 17 November 2016 came to an end.

14. Inasmuch as the DTC did not obtain any extension of time from this Court for complying with the order dated 17 November 2016, the petitioner would be entitled to actual benefits of regularisation from the expiry of the time granted by this Court in the said decision. That time expired on 17 January 2017, whereas the petitioner has been granted actual benefits of regularisation only with effect from 17 October 2017.

15. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition by partly allowing it and directing the DTC to disburse, to the petitioner, the benefits following regularization, which were granted to him with effect from 17 October 2017, additionally for the period 17 January 2017 till 17

KUMAR VATS

October 2017.

16. Let the payments to which the petitioner would be entitled be disbursed within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of actual payment.

17. The writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

VINOD KUMAR, J

JULY 24, 2026/AR Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS