Central Administrative Tribunal
Rakesh Kumar Gupta visually impaired senior citizen vs GNCTD on 2 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH
61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001
Order Sheet
Item no.: 39
M.A./3500/2026 (DELHI)
[ DIRECTION ]
[ SENIOR CITIZEN ]
In
Diary No.: 4251/2025
ENTRY IN SERVICE RECORDS
DIRECTION
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment: 3
Order Dated: 02/11/2026
RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA VISUALLY IMPAIRED SENIOR CITIZEN
Vs
GNCTD
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Applicant in person For Respondent(s) Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari with Mr. D K Singh Order of The Tribunal
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. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of the Bench that the applicant has been imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by the respondents. The said action of the respondents has already been challenged by the applicant by filing OA No. 2200 of 2021.
2. It is seen from the record that the applicant has filed multiple litigations including OAs and MAs, numbering more than 400. Learned counsel submits that all these matters may be listed together, as the issue regarding compulsory retirement, which is the subject matter of OA No. 2200 of 2021, is the lead issue. The relief prayed for in the present OA would become relevant only after the issue of compulsory retirement is adjudicated upon.
3. She further submits that the applicant had approached the Labour Court, and the matter was thereafter challenged by the Department by filing Writ Petition No. 6032 of 2025. She also submits that OA No. 2200 of 2021, concerning the compulsory retirement of the applicant, is pending adjudication before this Tribunal.
4. The applicant who appears in person through video conference states that the contention of the respondents counsel is not correct.
5. As the applicant party in person is visually handicap and is appearing through video conference, the audio of the applicant is malfunctioning, an opportunity is given to him to be physically persent in Court and submit his arguments. However, it is made clear that prime facie it appears that multiple OAs/MAs have already been filed by the applicant and the fact that the issue of compulsory retirement is pending adjudication in OA No. 2200 of 2021, this Court finds it may be prudent to decide the present O.A. after O.A. No. 2200 of 2021 is decided.
6. Accordingly, re-list the matter on 05.01.2027. B Anand Member (A) Shilpi Gupta ( steno )