BANGALI BABU AGARWAL AND RAHUL SARASWAT Vs. MCD & ORS. THROUGH THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES, DELHI SECRETARIAT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MA 2033/2012

(2.) THIS MA, filed by the two applicants, praying for permission for joining together in filing this OA, is allowed.

(3.) WITHIN around 8 to 9 years of their entering their services, vide office order dated 24.11.2006, the applicants were promoted to the posts of E.Es. in the unified MCD, on look after charge basis, which was done in compliance of the interim orders dated 07.11.2006 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 4123 -26/2005 in the case of Sandeep Malhotra and Others vs. MCD & Others. That bunch of cases was later transferred to this Tribunal by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 27.01.2009, numbered in the Tribunal as TA No. 327/2009 and decided through order dated 24.05.2011, which was a common order passed in TA No. 243/2009 Jagdish Prasad vs. MCD & Ors. with TA No. 327/2009 Sandeep Malhotra & 3 Ors. vs. MCD & Ors, with TA No. 395/2009 Ramesh Kumar & 3 Ors vs. MCD & Ors. The common judgment & order in these three TAs, was once again carried before the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 6568/2011 Jagdish Prasad vs. MCD & Ors. with WP(C) No. 293/2012 Ramesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. M.C.D. & Ors. along with WP (C) No. 8724/2011 Sandeep Malhotra & Ors. vs. MCD & Ors. It was argued before us that since there had been no subsequent final orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, its earlier interim orders dated 07.11.2006 in Sandeep Malhotra and Others vs. MCD & Others (supra), are still operative. However, it was not truthfully pointed out before us that even before the present O.A. had been argued & had been reserved on 24.10.2013, the Hon'ble High Court has already disposed off the three connected WP (C) Nos. 6568/2011 Jagdish Prasad vs. MCD & Ors., WP(C) No. 293/2012 Ramesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. M.C.D. & Ors. and WP (C) No. 8724/2011 Sandeep Malhotra & Ors. vs. MCD & Ors. through its final orders dated 05.08.2013, and had set aside the order dated 24.05.2011, and remanded those cases back to this Tribunal for a fresh adjudication, and that these three T.As had already been listed before this very Bench on 10.10.2013, without either side pointing out the connection with those three T.As. during the detailed arguments in the present case on 24.10.2013.