$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010357372026 + W.P.(C) 11107/2026, CM APPL. 51341/2026 PREM CHAND .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD Services with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. This petition seeks directions to the Respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings and conduct an enquiry against Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, grant compensation of ₹20,00,000/- to the Petitioner for the alleged mental, physical and financial harassment suffered by him, restore the Petitioner’s increments, consider his case for promotion, and transfer him to DTC Bus Depot, Ghumanhera, New Delhi, in view of his claims. 2. At the outset, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. It is submitted that Delhi Transport Corporation is a notified authority and the grievances raised by the Petitioner pertain to service matters falling within the jurisdiction of the 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 10/08/2026 at 11:52:03 Central Administrative Tribunal1 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.2 to contend that the Petitioner is required to avail the statutory remedy before the CAT in the first instance. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present petition deserves to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution as it involves infringement of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights. 4. In the opinion of the Court, the objection merits acceptance. The mere assertion of violation of fundamental rights does not, by itself, justify bypassing the remedy before the CAT. The Tribunal is competent to adjudicate the Petitioner’s grievances, including the plea of infringement of fundamental rights. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar, the Petitioner is required to avail the remedy before the CAT. 5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the CAT. 6. The Court has not commented on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 6, 2026 nk 1 “CAT” 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 10/08/2026 at 11:52:03