$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010361522026 + W.P.(C) 11242/2026 & CM APPL. 51988/2026 ASHOK DHAKA ....Petitioner Through: Ms.Yogyata Jhunjhunwala and Ms. Shivani Tape, Advs. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Namrata Mukim, SC for MCD and Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv. with Mr. Virender Kumar Yadav, Dealing Assistant, Edu Dept. West Zone, MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. The Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as a Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the Education Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [“MCD”] in the year 1999. 2. Since his services were not regularised, the Petitioner filed OA No. 4097/2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal [“CAT”] seeking regularisation. The said OA was disposed of in the following terms: “2.2. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant herein is similarly placed as that of the applicants in OA/3421 /2013. Therefore, we dispose of the present. O.A. on the same analogy with liberty to the applicant to approach and place all the relevant documents before the Commissioner of MCD. If any, right can be said to have been deprived hy them on the basis of such documents the Commissioner shall examine the matter and if he is of the view that any valid appointment was made by the appointing 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 12:30:45 authority against a cadre post, he shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. The appropriate orders be passed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the MCD passed the impugned order dated 21st August, 2025 holding that the Petitioner’s case was not covered under the policy governing regularisation, as he did not fulfil the prescribed norms for regularisation approved by the MCD. 4. At the outset, the Respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition, contending that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the directions issued by CAT. Since the grievance of the Petitioner arises from the said order, the appropriate remedy lies before the CAT. MCD being covered under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.1, the Petitioner cannot directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. In view of the above, Ms. Yogyata Jhunjhunwala, counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail of the appropriate remedy before the CAT. 6. Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted. 7. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 7, 2026/ng 1 (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 12:30:45