Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interim relief and engagement through contractor. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. commitment to employment despite current vacancies. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. expedited proceedings and filing of documents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. reservation of rights and non-consideration of merit. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--After some arguments, learned counsels for the parties submit that interim relief granted by the Tribunal, with consent, be moulded.
2. It is agreed that without consideration to the pending Original Application, Respondents shall approach the Petitioner for engagement through the Contractor. Petitioner, on such an application being received, shall forward the names of the applicants to the contractor for being engaged.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, submits that at the moment, there may not be any vacancy, however, the Department shall press with the contractor for giving employment to the applicants.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that they shall not press for enforcement of the interim orders, pending consideration of the Original Application by the Tribunal.
5. In view of the above, petition and the app
The court emphasized the modification of interim relief and the commitment to facilitate employment without addressing merits.
The Court emphasized the importance of expediting administrative proceedings and maintaining interim protection during the decision-making process of recruitment disputes.
Contractual employees granted interim protection against termination and fresh recruitment without preference, mirroring High Court order for similarly placed, pending final adjudication.
The court underscored the importance of expedient consideration by the Tribunal in matters affecting an individual's employment status and the requirement for timely responses from the respondents.
A petition can be deemed infructuous if the circumstances underlying the case have materially changed, affecting the necessity of the judicial intervention.
The court determined that procedural orders of the Tribunal seeking clarifications are not appealable and do not warrant immediate intervention by the High Court.
The court upheld the interim protection for workmen, clarifying it does not affect their employment claims while mandating the Union of India to timely address the reference.
The main legal point established is the importance of granting an opportunity to file a reply and assessing the essential criteria for granting an interim injunction before disposing of the applicati....
Parties must be afforded a fair opportunity to respond in injunction proceedings; failure to consider the requisite principles warrants intervention by appellate courts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
