SHIV KUMAR TYAGI vs Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) (GNCTD) on 6 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001 Order Sheet Item no.: 7 O.A./4492/2026 (DELHI) [ REGULARISATION ] Court No.: 6 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 06/11/2026 SHIV KUMAR TYAGI Vs DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (DTC) (GNCTD)

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr Manik Gupta For Respondent(s) Advocate : Ms Meenu Sharma for Mr Ajesh Luthra Order of The Tribunal M.A. No. 5795/2026 The present M.A. has been filed by the applicants (106 in number) seeking permission of this Tribunal to contest the present matter jointly.

2. In view of the averments made in the M.A., the present M.A. is allowed. The applicants are allowed to contest the present application jointly before this Tribunal. O.A. No. 4492/2026

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been working with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as Conductors for the last 10–16 years, to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents. It is contended that the applicants have a legitimate and enforceable right to be considered for regularization of their services from the initial date of appointment. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents are likely to replace the present applicants with another set of contractual employees, which would be impermissible in law. It is, therefore, argued that the applicants cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees.

2. Issue notice on interim relief as well as merits.

3. Ms Meenu Sharma, learned proxy counsel, who appears for Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the respondents on advance service and accepts notice.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant presses for grant of Interim Relief to maintain status quo with regard to the service conditions of the applicants till final disposal of the O.A and allow them to continue their services.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the applicants’ prayer for grant of Interim Relief.

6. Heard. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.

7. It is an undisputed position that the applicants have been continuously working with the respondents as Conductors for the last 10–16 years. It is also the case of the applicants that their services have been rendered to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents throughout this period. A further aspect which merits consideration is that some of the applicants were initially engaged through a selection process akin to the regular recruitment process. As averred in the O.A., the sanctioned strength of Conductors in DTC is stated to be approximately 17,000. Further, the Human Resource Management, CAG Report (Annexure A/12) indicates that the sanctioned strength of Conductors was 14,077 in the year 2024. These figures prima facie indicate the existence of substantial sanctioned cadre strength. The applicants have also asserted that a considerable number of sanctioned posts are lying vacant and that the respondents continue to have a requirement for the services of Conductors.

8. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 21.03.2023 in the matter of Ms. Neeru Kalher Vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University & Ors., in W.P. (C) No. 6014/2021, has held that law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Os. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 118, that contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee, but only by regularly selected candidates. The applicants have a strong prima facie case in their favour, particularly in view of the fact that they have been continuously working with the respondents for the last 10–16 years. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the applicants and they would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the interim protection, as prayed for, is not granted. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the applicants are entitled to the same interim protection/directions at this stage as granted in similar matters.

9. As an ad-interim measure, we direct the respondents to maintain status-quo to service conditions of the present applicants and allow them to continue in service.

10. The respondents are directed to file counter reply within four weeks. Short reply to prayer for Interim Relief may be filed within two weeks. The applicant may file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

11. Continuation/modification of the interim order passed herein shall also be considered only after filing reply/short reply to the Interim Prayer.

12. List for further consideration on 04.02.2027.

13. Issue CC as per rules.

Rajinder Kashyap Member (A) Ajay Pratap Singh Member (J) Neetu Sharma ( steno 'c' )