* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 18.11.2025

Pronounced on: 12.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 1798/2024

RAMESH KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr.S. N. Sharma and

Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advs.

versus

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....Respondent

Through: Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

for Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.140/2020, titled Sh. Ramesh Kumar v. Delhi Transport

Corporation, dismissing the said O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.

2. The petitioner had filed the above O.A. challenging the Order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the respondent, whereby the respondent

retired the petitioner from its services with effect from 31.03.2014.

3. It was the claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal that as he had worked and performed his duties till 30.08.2018, whereafter the respondent had stopped giving him any duty, despite an interim order in his favour, passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.829/2014, which had been filed by him seeking to restrain the respondent from retiring him at the age of 55 years and seeking directions to continue his service till he attains the age of 60 years, therefore, his date of superannuation should be considered as 30.08.2018.

4. This plea of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order, by observing as under:

“6. I have gone through the records of the case thoroughly and heard the arguments carefully. In the instant case, the applicant remained in service because of the Interim order granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.01.2019 in OA No.829/2014. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the judgment of the Apex Court in Jahan Singh’s case (Supra) is applicable in the instant case. Here, it is not the case that the applicant was retired retrospectively on a particular date by the respondents on their own volition. When the aforementioned OA was dismissed, it implies that the relief sought by the applicant for remaining in service beyond the age of 55 years was declined. Accordingly his effective date of retirement remained as 55 years as the applicant was found medically unfit to remain in service as a Driver on the basis of the Medical Board declaring him unfit vide their report dated 27.3.2014. In view of this, the ratio of the judgment in the Jahan Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.

6.1 On the other hand, the ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Dharam Pal’s case (supra) is squarely applicable in the instant case. The facts and circumstance of the said case is the exactly the same as obtaining in the present case. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that after attaining the age of 55 years the Drivers are not entitled to remain in service unless they are declared fit by the Medical Board. Hence the order dated 14.03.2019 retiring the applicant when he attained the age of 55 years i.e. on 31.03.2014, is legitimate. The said order does not suffer on account of any illegality or arbitrariness.”

5. To appreciate the above finding of the learned Tribunal, a few facts deserve notice of this Court.

6. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver with the respondent in January, 1983. He developed some defect in his eyesight in the year 1986, and the Medical Board of the respondent declared him as medically unfit to perform his duties vide Letter dated 20.01.1992, whereafter, vide Letter dated 01.05.1996, he was prematurely retired from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute and the learned Labour Court, Delhi, vide Award dated 17.05.1999, held the petitioner’s premature retirement from service to be illegal and the respondent was ordered to reinstate the petitioner in service with al