2010 STPL(Web) 685 DEL 1Radha Dubey Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
2010 STPL(Web) 685 DELDELHI HIGH COURT
(HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.)
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
RespondentCM No.2149 of 2010, CM 2148 of 2010 & R.A 68 of 2010 in WP(C) No. 13988 of 2009-
Decided on 19-03-2010.
Service Law – Termination
Advocate(s): For the Petitioner: Mr. Shree Prakash Sharma, AdvocateFor the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Nanda and Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 to3.
JUDGEMENTAnil Kumar, J.-
CM No.2149 of 20101. This is an application seeking condonation of 18 days delay in filing the review application bythe petitioner.2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. Applicationstands disposed off.R.A no. 68 of 2010 & CM No.2148 of 20103. The petitioner seeks review of order dated 21st December, 2009 dismissing her petitionwherein she had assailed the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.2745/2008 dismissing her original application.The petitioner has also sought directions to the respondents to produce her leave account.4. The petitioner was working as medical officer under the Government NCT of Delhi and onaccount of remaining absent from duty for considerable period her services were terminated byletter dated 23.-27.11.2007, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a
OriginalApplication No.2745/2009, titled as ‘Dr. Radha Dubey vs. Government of NCT of Delhi andanother’,
which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 13.11.2009.5. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner’s application was challenged in the writpetition being W.P.(C) No.13988/2009, filed before this Court which was also dismissed by orderdated 21.12.2009, holding inter-alia, that the services of the petitioner had not been regularized,and merely because the petitioner was being paid salary admissible to the regular employees, onthe basis of ‘equal pay for equal work’, it could not be held that the petitioner who was appointed
Delhi High Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in