ORDER :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard Sri Gibran Akhtar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Surangama Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the writ petition, are to the effect that an advertisement dated 08.10.2010 was issued for inviting the applications to the post of Architect on contract basis for two years on consolidated salary for Rae Bareilly project of the petitioner/Ircon International Limited, New Delhi. The respondent-Deepak Yadav was given appointment vide order dated 28.10.2010 on the post of Architect and his tenure was extended till 31.12.2018.

3. In the meantime, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 32978 (S/S) of 2018 before this Court. The same was dismissed by the order dated 14.11.2018, the same is quoted below:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and to Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of writ petition before this Court by making submission that IRCON International Ltd. has been notified under Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, therefore, the petitioner has remedy to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in view of the judgment rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others; AIR 1997 SC 1125.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

However, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow for redressal of his grievances."

4. In view of the aforesaid factual background, the respondent filed Original Application (in short "OA") No. 547 of 2008 [Deepak Yadav v. Union of India] before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. The OA was filed for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a order or direction directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from date of its entitlement will all consequential benefit in the lights of his representation dated 3.8.2018 (Annexure No. 9) to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a order or direction directing the respondents to provide the petitioner increased Annual Salary increment and dearness allowance as increased from time to time."

5. The OA was disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2019. The operative portion of the order dated 16.01.2019 is quoted below:-

"In view of the above, we feel that IRCON is a big organization which deals with several projects. In the interest of justice, if there are other ongoing projects or project to come in future and if the applicant applies for the same and if qualification of the applicant suits in those project, the respondents may take a decision as deem fit.

With the above observations, the O.A. stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

6. The order dated 16.01.2019 has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court and the sole ground pressed and argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner has not been notified under Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (in short "Act of 1985"). Hence, the OA filed by the applicant itself was not maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal and thus, the order dated 16.01.2019 is nullity being without jurisdiction. The prayer is to cause interference in the order impugned dated 16.01.2019.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Ms. Surangama Sharma submitted before us that she does not dispute the fact that the petitioner/Ircon International Limited, New Delhi has not been notified under Section 14 of the Act of 1985.

8. She further submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court dated 14.11.2018, passed in writ petition No. 32978 (S/S) of 2018 filed by the respondent, which was dismissed by the order dated 14.11.2018 with the liberty to the respondent to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, for redressal of his grievances, the OA was