Disposed

Mukesh Kumar v. B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2024CONT.CAS(C)/71/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents willfully disobeyed a previous court order directing them to decide his representation within four weeks. The respondents submitted that a detailed speaking order was passed on 11 January, 2024 after hearing the parties. The Court found that the representation had been decided and disposed of the petition as satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of as satisfied.

Mukesh Kumar Vs B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~95

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 71/2024 & CM APPL. 2715/2024

¶4

MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Nikhil Mehta and Mr. Raghav Arora, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

B.S.E.S YAMUNA POWER LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Advocate alongwith Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate for R-1 to 5 Mob. 9971356506

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 16.01.2024

¶13

CM APPL. 2715/2024 (for Exemption)

¶14

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶15

Application is disposed of.

¶16

CONT.CAS(C) 71/2024

¶17

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation and th willful disobedience of the order dated 10 August, 2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 610/2019.

¶18

The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the respondents to provide promotional/career advancement and monetary benefits to the employees contrary to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court.

¶19

By order dated 10^th August, 2023 in W.P.(C) 610/2019, this Court had directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with copy of the

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2024 at 11:30:10

¶21

writ petition before the respondents. The respondents were directed to dispose of the fresh representation of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and by passing a detailed and reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. Since the representation of the petitioner has not been decided by the respondents, the present contempt petition has come to be filed.

¶22

However, today learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner has been decided on 11^th January, 2024 after filing of the present petition.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance notice submits that since the issue involved complicated questions, detailed hearing was given to the petitioner and other employees of respondent no. 1. Thus, he submits that after consideration of all the documents on record, a detailed speaking order has been passed, which took some time.

¶24

He accordingly submits that there was no deliberate delay on part of the respondents in deciding the representation of the petitioner. 9. Since the representation of the petitioner has already been decided by the respondents in terms of the order dated 10^th August, 2023 passed by this Court, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition.

¶25

The present contempt petition is disposed of as satisfied.

¶26

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶27

JANUARY 16, 2024 ak

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2024 at 11:30:10

Mukesh Kumar v. B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors.

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

Sarvjeet Singh Vs Pranay Sahay and Ors.

Shreya Vs 1. Sh. Manish Kumar Gupta, Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority, & Anr.

Shreya Vs Sh Manish Kumar Gupta Vice Chairman & Anr.

Mohd Waseem Vs Gyanesh Bharti and Ors.

Satish Kumar Vs Sh Ajay Kumar Bhalla Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Arun Arora Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors.

Uttar Pradesh Bihar Nagrik Parishad Vs Manmohan & Anr.

Hotage India Vs Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain

Sarvjeet Singh Vs Pranay Sahay and Ors.

Shreya Vs 1. Sh. Manish Kumar Gupta, Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority, & Anr.

Shreya Vs Sh Manish Kumar Gupta Vice Chairman & Anr.

Gaurav Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Preeti Vs Gopal Singh

Barjinder Singh Vs Pia Singh