Dismissed

S P Gulati v. S C Jain Chairman & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Oct 2016CONT.CAS(C)/636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for contempt arising from alleged non-compliance with an order dated 19.03.2015, the Court held that no specific directions were issued in that order. Mere expression of views regarding salary entitlement did not constitute compliance. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed due to absence of specific compliance directions in the impugned order.

S P Gulati Vs S C Jain Chairman & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 636/2016

¶4

S P GULATI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kartar Singh, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

S C JAIN CHAIRMAN & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Dayal, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Niti Jain, Adv. for R-2 & 3.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 17.10.2016

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 19.03.2015, which observed, inter alia, as under:

¶9

“..... 1. The issue in the present case seems to be covered in favour of the petitioner in view of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Mithilesh Swami in W.P. (C) No. 2077/2012 decided on 08.04.2013, but, counsel for the respondent no. 2/Director of Education wants to examine as to whether there exist any orders or papers in the file of the respondent no.2 qua the petitioner by which petitioner as per the applicable guidelines need not having given reemployment. Of course, if there are no grounds existing in the file of the petitioner to be unfit for reemployment whether on account of the post being advertised for being filled by direct recruitment or the post was to be filled by promotion etc. as stated in the relevant guidelines, the petitioner may have granted a relief as claimed in the petition, of course subject to the condition that the petitioner may or may not be entitled to 100% of the salary but only 2/3^rd portion thereof in

¶10

view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524.

¶11

List for further proceedings on 11.05.2015....”

¶12

The Court is of the view that there are no specific directions issued to the respondents which would require compliance by the respondents. The Court, at best, expressed its view regarding the likely percentage of the salary which the petitioner may be entitled to in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524 . The case was listed for further proceedings on 11.05.2015. Even on the subsequent dates it is found that the Court did not take a view about the monies to be paid by the respondents.

¶13

From the above it is clear that there was no specific direction to be complied with. In the absence of same, no case for contempt is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

¶15

OCTOBER 17, 2016 /kk

S P Gulati v. S C Jain Chairman & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S P Gulati v. S C Jain Chairman & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Mahajan Vs Akhil Bharatiya Mahajan Shriomani Sabha Thr Its President & Ors.

Kavita Kaur Vs P K Gupta & Anr.

D S Rao Vs Chaman Lal and Anr.

Neha Datta Vs Ujjwal Datta & Anr.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs Mr P K Gupta & Anr.

Vishambar Singh Negi Vs Vinai Kumar Saxena

Sanjay Bhasin Vs Alka Bhasin

Satya Chhikara Vs S Kemparaj & Ors.

The Managment of O.P.Agency Vs Vijender Singh & Ors.

M/S Sanarti Signals (P) Ltd. Vs Dinesh Kumar

Rajinder Prasad Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sher Singh Dagar Vs Secretary Labour Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Meenal Passi Vs Union of India & Anr.

Poonam Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.