Disposed

Gurmeet Kaur v. Vinay Bhusan

Delhi HC7 Jan 2020CONT.CAS(C)/1090/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order in a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a directive to decide a pending representation regarding salary payment. The court grants the respondent one week to decide the representation and pay costs, with liberty to revive the petition if conditions are not met.

What did the court decide?

Respondent granted one week to decide representation and pay Rs.20,000 costs; liberty to revive petition if not complied with.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Vinay Bhusan — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1090/2019 & C.M. No. 53405/2019 GURMEET KAUR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

VINAY BHUSAN ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for GNCTD with Ms. Swagata Bhuyan, Ms. Khushboo Nahar, Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocates with Mr. R. K. Tyagi, OSD, Zone-28 for responden/Directorate of Education.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶7

O R D E R % 07.01.2020

¶8

The present contempt petition has been filed by an employee of Guru Harikishan Public School, Karol Bagh, New Delhi alleging non compliance by the respondent of order dated 30.10.2018 passed by this Court in W. P. (C) No.11168/2018.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 30.10.2018, this Court had directed the respondent to decide the petitioner’s pending representation dated 05.04.2017 within a period of four weeks, which direction has not been complied with despite the elapse of more than one year since the order was passed. Consequently, the petitioner is suffering great financial hardship as she is not being paid her due salary by the school.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent who appears on advance notice, while not disputing that the respondent had been directed by this Court to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 05.04.2017 within a period of four weeks, submits that the draft speaking order has already been prepared and is pending approval. She therefore prays for further one week’s time to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 05.04.2017 in terms of the Court’s order dated 30.10.2018.

¶11

Even though there is no justification for granting any further time to the respondent to decide the representation as it is clearly in breach of specific directions passed by this Court, but in light of the respondent’s stand that the representation will be positively decided within one week; last opportunity of one week is granted to the respondent, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner, to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 05.04.2017 by way of a reasoned and speaking order.

¶12

It is made clear that in case the representation is not decided or the costs remain unpaid within this period of one week, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the present contempt petition.

¶13

The contempt petition is disposed of, in the above terms.

¶14

REKHA PALLI, J

¶15

JANUARY 07, 2020 ssc

Gurmeet Kaur v. Vinay Bhusan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Kaur v. Vinay Bhusan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Singh Rana Vs Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors.

Zeeny Jhelumi Vs Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi

Dashrath Verma Vs Nahar Singh

Sushil Kumar Jain Vs Tanveer Ahmed & Anr.

Ram Khilari Vs M.U.Server Assistant Commissioner & Anr.

Indian Power Lifting Federaton Vs Radhey Shyam Julaniya

Puran Singh Yadav & Ors. Vs R K Aggarwal

Chander Bhan Vs Raghubir Singh & Ors.

Sh. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Balwan Khokhar Vs State & Anr.

Sonveer@ Pinku@ Sombir Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Abhishek Singh & Ors. Vs the State of N.C.T of Delhi & Anr.

Rachna @ Babli @ Chanchal Vs Navin Kumar Joshi