$~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9765/2026, CM APPL. 45520/2026 PUSHPA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar and Mr. Vidhik Kumar, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta, SC for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. The Petitioner, who is working as a Safaikaramchari with the Respondent, contends that despite her name figuring in the seniority list of leave substitute employees prepared pursuant to the judgment dated 27th February, 2006 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 24009/2005, her claim has not been considered by the Respondent in accordance therewith. In this regard, the Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 11th March, 2026 through the Delhi Municipal Mazdoor Trade Union (Registered), which remains pending consideration. 2. At the outset, counsel for the Respondents object to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is a notified authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the dispute raised herein falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:36:40 Union of India & Ors.,2 the Petitioner, having an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid legal position and submits that the Petitioner confines the present petition to a limited prayer seeking a direction to the Respondent to consider and decide the representation dated 11th March, 2026. 4. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent to consider and decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 11th March, 2026 by passing a speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. It is clarified that if the Petitioner remains aggrieved by the decision taken thereon, it shall be open to the Petitioner to avail of such remedies as may be available in law, by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, if so advised 5. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the Petitioner’s claim and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The aforesaid directions are being issued despite the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present petition, in view of the limited and non-contentious nature of the relief sought by the Petitioner. 6. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of along with pending application. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 20, 2026/nk 2 (1997) 3 SCC 261. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:36:40