Karamvir Singh & Ors vs Rajesh Arya & Ors

Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present Contempt Petition (CP) has been filed alleging wilful defiance of the directions of this Tribunal in the order/judgment dated 07.03.2025 in the aforesaid OA (Annexure CP-/X1). The operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:-

"25. Accordingly, the impugned action of the respondents in denying consideration for regularization is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the department to reconsider the applicants' cases in light of the Jaggo (supra) and other relevant precedents. The respondents are directed to undertake a fair and objective evaluation of the applicants' eligibility for regularization, keeping in view their long- standing service, experience, and the recommendations of the internal committees. A reasoned decision shall be taken and communicated to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the present Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs"."

The grievance of the applicants is that despite lapse of the stipulated period of three months, the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Tribunal and have deliberately and willfully violated the same.

Ld. Sr Advocate representing the applicants stated that respondents had preferred a challenge to the order of the Tribunal by filing a Writ Petition which was later withdrawn as such the order of the Tribunal has attained finality. He argued that respondents have willfully committed contempt by issuing the speaking order in the manner the same has been issued. It was submitted that the respondents have issued the speaking order in clear violation of the fact finding of this Tribunal. Respondents have stated that the case of the applicants is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 instead of Jaggo & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal of 2024 (arising out of SLP No.5580/2024) as held by this Tribunal.

On the other hand, respondents in their reply affidavit state that in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal, the cases of the applicants have been duly considered and a reasoned and speaking order dated 13.10.2025 has been passed. A copy of the said order has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. It has further been submitted that the delay in compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to administrative processes. The respondents have also tendered an unconditional apology for the delay.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.

The direction of this Tribunal in the order dated 07.03.2025 was to reconsider the cases of the applicants and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period. From the documents placed on record, it is evident that the respondents have passed a reasoned order dated 13.10.2025 in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal.

It is settled law that the jurisdiction under contempt is limited to examining whether there has been willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court/Tribunal. Once substantial compliance is demonstrated, contempt proceedings cannot be continued.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rita Saxena vs. Gvl Satya Kumar Managing Director Cris & Ors. decided on 30.05.2025 (Cont. CAS (C)1274/2023 CM Appl. 53042/2023), while dealing with a similar issue, has extensively considered the law laid down in J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar (1996) 6 SCC 291 and other judgments governing contempt jurisdiction, and has held as under:

"55. The decisions, as noted above, emanating from J.S. Parihar (supra) are consistent in their approach. The Contempt Courts have always kept their hands away from any interpretative exercise, save and accept, to juxtapose the order passed with the compliance claimed.

The merits of the decision are not a matter for a Contempt Court to review. The only exception, as carved out in Ashok Kumar Sinha (supra) is that the decision taken, is completely in contravention of the directions passed; frustrating the entire import of those directions.

The Court, therefore, is invited to look very closely at the directions which were passed. In this case, the direction was that, "the respondent shall consider the effect thereof under the rules and proceed accordingly". With the APAR having been upgraded and the respondent having convened a DPC (though post a direction by the Court on 5 th September 2003), it was for the DPC to consider the effect of the upgraded APAR.

It cannot be anybody's case that the Review Court had directed that based on the upgraded APAR, the petitioner ought to get promotion. If that were the case, directions as regards the same would have been passed.

No doubt, it would have been the desire of petitioner to achieve the promotion, pursuant to the upgradation of the APAR, and it may be so that she did not envisage that she would face further roadblocks and qualifiers in this regard. However, that relief would have to be sought before the appropriate Writ Court, either by means of a clarification or by means of using the decision taken by the latest DPC, as a fresh cause of action.

Taking a view otherwise, in favour of the petitioner, would result in opening the floodgates for contempt petitioners to involve the Contempt Court in assessing the merits of the decision taken. It is to be noted that the Court is not oblivious of the fact that many decisions are taken, purportedly 'complying' with the directions of Court, yet, end up frustrating the purpose for which the petitioner had originally agitated the matter.

Even applying the Supreme Court's slim gateway of 'limited scrutiny' in Ashok Kumar Sinha (supra), the petitioner's submissions do not pass muster, as noted above. What is being asserted by the petitioners, in challenging the order dated 10th October 2023, denying the promotion to the petitioner, involves more than a 'limited scrutiny'; going beyond the realm of what had been agitated before the Writ Court.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

The petitioner may have a legitimate grievance that while rejecting the petitioner's case for promotion, new issues have been raised by the DPC, basis which, the promotion has been rejected. However, this would form a new cause of action and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Writ Court in this regard.

Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court."

In the present case as well, the limited issue for consideration is whether there has been wilful disobedience of the directions of this Tribunal. The contention of the applicants that their case ought to have been considered in the light of Jaggo (supra) instead of Uma Devi (supra) involves examination of the merits of the decision taken by the respondents, which falls outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be gone into in the present proceedings.

The delay in compliance, stands explained by the respondents also and the delay is not found to be willful or deliberate. The unconditional apology tendered by the respondents is accepted.

In case of R. N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik (2000) 4 SCC 400 the Supreme Court observed that the weapon of contempt cannot be used for purpose of executing a decree or implementing an order for which law provides appropriate procedure. Respondents have issued the order and in case applicants are aggrieved remedies are available.

In view of the above, we are satisfied that no case of willful disobedience is made out against the respondents warranting continuation of contempt proceedings.

Accordingly, the present Contempt Petition is closed/dropped and notices, if any, are discharged. However, liberty is granted to the applicants to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if they are aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2025. No order as to costs.