Single Judge Order disposing of a contempt petition regarding representation on employment and statutory benefits.
Liberty given to petitioner to challenge decision dated 21.07.2014 within four weeks, subject to no limitation objection by respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANDEEP SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Sriparna Chetterjee, Adv.
versus
DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Akash Nagar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Dhananjay Rana, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
O R D E R % 19.01.2016
CONT.CAS(C) 350/2013
8. In case, the petitioners still feel aggrieved, they are at liberty to challenge the decision of the respondents.”
On 26th September, 2013, the respondents submitted before this Court that vide communication dated 09th May, 2013, the decision and response to the petitioners representation has been sent to them. It was further submitted that after due deliberations over eight meetings, the High Power Committee has submitted its report and finalised a draft statue called Delhi Technical University Statue, 2012 which has been sent for approval and publication to the Lt. Governor and all steps were expected completed within four weeks. This Court recorded the submissions of the respondents whereupon this Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the decision if they were not satisfied with the same. Order dated 26th September, 2013 is reproduced hereunder:-
“ This contempt petition is predicated on noncompliance of the orders
passed by this Court on 29th May, 2012 by disposing off WP(C) No.3207/2012 whereby the directions were issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, “to decide the representation/legal notice made by the petitioners within 6 weeks from today and outcome thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners.”
Notice in this matter was issued on 30th April, 2013. In reply, the respondents have taken the position that the disposal of the petitioners’ representation envisaged due consideration of all aspects of the matter by a High Power Committee. It is further submitted at the Bar that the communication dated 9th May, 2013 sent to the petitioners, in fact, constitutes the decision and response to the aforesaid representation of the petitioners qua which the aforesaid directions were issued by this Court. It is further stated that after due deliberations over about eight meetings, the High Power Committee has ultimately submitted its report, and also finalized a draft statute called, the Delhi Technological University Statute (fifth), 2012, governing the terms and conditions of continuation of teaching and non-teaching employees of the erstwhile Delhi College of Engineering in the Delhi Technological University.
Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that this draft statute has been forwarded for approval and publication to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; and all
further steps, including publication thereof, are expected to be completed within 4 weeks from today. She further submits, on instructions, that the aforesaid steps taken by the respondents constitute a complete response to the representation/legal notice of the petitioners and that the petitioners would be entitled to all further benefits, if any, in terms thereof. At the same time, in case the petitioners are, in any way, dissatisfied by the aforesaid decision taken in response to their representation it would be open to them to take recourse to such other proceedings as they may be advised to seek for appropriate redressal in the matter. The statement of counsel for the respondents is accepted by this Court.
Counsel for the petitioners states that, under the circumstances, she does not wish to press this petition any further.
This petition is therefore disposed off in the above terms.”
J.R. MIDHA, J.
JANUARY 19, 2016 ak
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners can challenge the decision dated 21.07.2014 despite the lapse of time from the earlier order.
Whether the respondents can raise the issue of delay in responding to the petitioners' representation.
Sandeep Singh & Ors.
Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors.
J.R. Midha
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
