Atul Krishna Goswami And Ors vs Hasmukh Adhia And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

In these three Contempt Petitions, the grievance of the applicants is that the respondents did not implement the directions issued by this Tribunal in the respective OAs. The common fact which runs across all the three contempt cases is that the applicants filed the OAs challenging the action of the respondents in not promoting them in the name of implementing the reservation in promotion in the respective organisations. While in one, the discussion was undertaken extensively, in other cases the orders were passed in terms of the same. The gist of the direction is that the respondents shall follow the judgment in M. Nagaraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Others AIR 2007 SC 71, and extend consequential benefits to the respective applicants.

The respondents filed writ petitions against such orders, one of which is W.P. (C) No.12035/2018. After the disposal of the OAs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the judgment in Nagraj's case (supra) in some detail in Jarnail Singh & Others vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30621/2011 decided on 26.09.2018. Taking note of the same, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court disposed of all the writ petitions on 12.11.2018 directing the respondents to comply with the judgment in Jarnail Singh within three months. The respondents filed SLP feeling aggrieved by the common order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

At one stage, the contempt cases were adjourned sine die. Today we took them up for hearing, and heard the arguments of Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Hanu Bhaskar and Shri R. V. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.

As observed earlier, the direction issued in the respective OAs was that the respondents shall follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagraj's case and to extend the consequential benefits to the applicants. Had the order remained as such and the writ petition was dismissed upholding the order of the Tribunal in all respects, the present contempt cases could have been certainly entertained. The fact, however, remains that in the writ petitions filed by the respondents, the Hon'ble High Court took note of the judgment in Jarnail Singh's case, and issued a specific direction to follow that. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-

"There is no gain saying that in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (supra), the Union of India and all others are bound to comply with the same. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the present petitions by directing that the Union onf India shall comply with the judgment in Jarnai Singh (supra). Since the judgment in Jarnail Singh (supra has been rendered only on 26.09.2018, we extend the time for compliance by another three months."

The result is that a direction which was issued in the OA in terms of the judgment in Nagraj's case (supra) stood modified to the one of the implementation of the directions contained in Jarnail Singh's case. If the respondents have not taken any steps as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, the contempt would be the one arising out of the writ petitions. The orders in the OA merge in, or stand modified with, the order in the writ petitions.

Added to that, it is brought to our notice that the applicants have since been promoted. If the promotion is not in accordance with law or as per the directions issued by this Tribunal or the High Court, a different set of proceedings needs to be instituted. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any merit in the Contempt petitions.

Therefore, the CPs are closed. However, if the applicants are of the view that the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions were not complied with, it shall be open for them to institute the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, in accordance with law.