Harinder Singh vs GNCTD on 27 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001 Order Sheet Item no.: 73 O.A./1983/2025 (DELHI) [ PENSIONARY BENEFITS ] Court No.: 4 No of Adjournment: 6 Order Dated: 27/10/2026 HARINDER SINGH Vs GNCTD

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) Advocate : Ms. Neelima Rathore Order of The Tribunal Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the applicant is cryptic and non-speaking in nature, as the contentions raised by the applicant have not been duly considered by the competent authority. It is submitted that the misconduct alleged against the applicant was that of unauthorised absence from duty, which, by itself, cannot be equated with moral turpitude so as to deny consideration for compassionate appointment. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 684, and submits that the principles laid down therein have not been duly considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have raised certain contentions for the first time, particularly in paragraph 9, which ought to have been considered by the competent authority while passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is contended that the deficiencies in the impugned order cannot be cured by way of subsequent averments made in the counter affidavit.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the representation of the applicant was duly considered by the competent authority and rejected for the reasons recorded therein. It is further submitted that the order of termination passed against the applicant in 2011 was challenged before the competent forum, and the challenge to the said order ultimately came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the applicant. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant cannot seek to reopen the issue which has already attained finality.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the applicant had submitted a representation in 2024 and thereafter approached this Tribunal by filing an Original Application, which came to be disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh.

5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dismissal of his Special Leave Petition challenging the order of termination does not preclude consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Orders reserved. Manish Garg Member (J) Sneha Meena ( steno 'c' )