Disposed¶43

Ritu & Ors. v. Nitesh Kumar Mishra

Delhi HC23 Jan 2025CONT.CAS(C)/87/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revival of contempt petitions; CONT.CAS(C) Delhi High Court; Manoj Jain, J.; appointment letters issued but no posting order; respondent Nitesh Kumar Mishra; appointment letters cancelled vide order dated 13.02.2025 by speed post; contempt not initiated; applications disposed of with liberty to challenge cancellation by substantive petition; grievance not without merit; communication by e-mail observation; connected matters CONT.CAS(C) 87/2025, 125/2025, 126/2025, 127/2025, 128/2025, 129/2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate action as permissible under law (petitioner's counsel stated the cancellation would be challenged by filing a substantive petition). ¶43

Ritu & Ors. Vs Nitesh Kumar Mishra — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate action as permissible under law (petitioner's counsel stated the cancellation would be challenged by filing a substantive petition).

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the disposed-of contempt petitions should be revived and contempt initiated against the respondent for failure to issue posting orders to the petitioners despite the Court's earlier directions.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Despite there being specific directions, the petitioners were not issued any posting order, and to that extent the grievance raised by the petitioners is not without any merit or substance.

¶32

Key takeaways

In view of the development that the petitioners' appointments have already been cancelled (vide order dated 13.02.2025), the Court is in no position to come to the rescue of the petitioners, and the applications seeking revival of the contempt petitions are disposed of with liberty to take recourse to appropriate action as permissible under law.ratio¶38
The Court observed it was baffling that the communications cancelling the appointment letters were sent by speed post rather than by e-mail, when the respondents already had the petitioners' e-mail IDs.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.) - Contempt-petition revival applications (CONT.CAS(C) Nos. 85, 87, 125-129/2025). The petitioners, who had admittedly been issued appointment letters but were neither assigned work nor given any place of posting, sought revival of their earlier disposed-of contempt petitions and initiation of contempt against the respondent for failure to issue posting orders despite the Court's direction to report to the Head Office. The Court recorded that despite specific directions no posting order was issued and the grievance was 'not without any merit or substance'. However, learned counsel for the respondent disclosed that the appointment letters of all the petitioners had been cancelled vide order dated 13.02.2025 and were transmitted by speed post; copies were handed over during the hearing, and the petitioner's counsel stated he would challenge the cancellation by filing a substantive petition. Holding itself 'in no position to come to the rescue of the petitioner' in view of the cancellation, the Court disposed of all the applications while giving the petitioners liberty to take recourse to appropriate action as permissible under law. The Court also remarked that it was baffling the cancellation communications were not sent by e-mail although the respondents had the petitioners' e-mail IDs.

¶1

$~83to89

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+	CONT.CAS(C) 85/2025 & C DEVENDRA KUMAR	M APPL. 9221/2025	.....Petitioner
	Through: versus	Mr. Nitin K Gupta Vyas, Mr. Ayush Tr	with Mr. Pranjal ipathi, Advocates.
84 +	NITESH KUMAR MISHRA Through: CONT.CAS(C) 87/2025 & C RITU & ORS.	Mr. Piyush Gupta, Atishay Jain and Advocates. Mr. Vineet Dhanda Shweta Shandiliya Medha, Advocates. M APPL. 9216/2025	.....Respondent CGSC with Mr. Mr. Prateek Jain, , CGSC with Ms. and Ms. Haridas .....Petitioner
	Through: versus	Mr. Nitin K Gupta Vyas, Mr. Ayush Tr	with Mr. Pranjal ipathi, Advocates.
	NITESH KUMAR MISHRA Through:	Mr. Piyush Gupta, Atishay Jain and Advocates. Mr. Vineet Dhanda Shweta Shandiliya Medha, Advocates.	.....Respondent CGSC with Mr. Mr. Prateek Jain, , CGSC with Ms. and Ms. Haridas

¶4

CONT.CAS(	C) 125/2025 & C	M APPL. 9219/2025
SACHIN		.....Petitioner
	Through:	Mr. Nitin K Gupta with Mr. Pranjal Vyas, Mr. Ayush Tripathi, Advocates.
	versus
NITESH KU	MAR MISHRA	.....Respondent
	Through:	Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr.
		Atishay Jain and Mr. Prateek Jain,

¶5

CONT.CAS(C) 85/2025 & other connected matters 1

¶6

This is a digitally signed order.

¶7

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 01/07/2025 at 01:35:05

¶8

Advocates. Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Ms. Shweta Shandiliya and Ms. Haridas Medha, Advocates.

¶9

86 + CONT.CAS(C) 126/2025 & CM APPL. 9215/2025 VINAY MALIK & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin K Gupta with Mr. Pranjal Vyas, Mr. Ayush Tripathi, Advocates. versus NITESH KUMAR MISHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Atishay Jain and Mr. Prateek Jain, Advocates. Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Ms. Shweta Shandiliya and Ms. Haridas Medha, Advocates. 87 + CONT.CAS(C) 127/2025 & CM APPL. 9214/2025 SHALU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin K Gupta with Mr. Pranjal Vyas, Mr. Ayush Tripathi, Advocates. versus NITESH KUMAR MISHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Atishay Jain and Mr. Prateek Jain, Advocates. Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Ms. Shweta Shandiliya and Ms. Haridas Medha, Advocates.

¶10

¶11

CONT.CAS(C) 85/2025 & other connected matters 2

¶12

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 01/07/2025 at 01:35:05

¶13

CONT.CAS(C) 128/2025 & CM APPL. 9224/2025 RAGHAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin K Gupta with Mr. Pranjal Vyas, Mr. Ayush Tripathi, Advocates. versus NITESH KUMAR MISHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Atishay Jain and Mr. Prateek Jain, Advocates. Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Ms. Shweta Shandiliya and Ms. Haridas Medha, Advocates.

¶14

89 + CONT.CAS(C) 129/2025 & CM APPL. 9217/2025 MAHAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin K Gupta with Mr. Pranjal Vyas, Mr. Ayush Tripathi, Advocates. versus NITESH KUMAR MISHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Atishay Jain and Mr. Prateek Jain, Advocates. Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Ms. Shweta Shandiliya and Ms. Haridas Medha, Advocates.

¶15

CORAM:

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶17

O R D E R % 14.02.2025

¶18

These petitioners had earlier also filed contempt petitions.

¶19

Two contempt petitions bearing no. CONT CAS (C) No. 85/2025 and CONT. CAS (C) No. 87/2025 had previously been taken up on 23.01.2025 and the rest were taken up on 29.01.2025

¶20

CONT.CAS(C) 85/2025 & other connected matters 3

¶21

¶22

All the petitioners seek revival of their contempt petitions and seek initiation of contempt against respondent.

¶23

While disposing of such petitions, on the basis of the submission made by the respondents, the petitioners had been directed to report to their Head Office on a specified date with direction that if they complete the procedural formalities, further needful would be done.

¶24

The petitioners had been, admittedly, issued appointment letters but according to them, these were paper formalities as they were not assigned any work and were not issued any place of posting either.

¶25

The contempt petitions filed by Davinder Kumar and Ritu and Ors . were again taken up on 10.02.2025 as they had contended that despite the above said direction, they had not been given any posting order. After hearing the respondent, further directions were passed as respondent, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, had submitted that they would issue requisite posting order within a period of two days.

¶26

The grievance of all the petitioners is to the effect that there is no posting order issued to them and, therefore, it is prayed that all these contempt petitions should be revived and appropriate action should be taken against the contemnor.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent appears on advance notice and reiterates that there was never any intention to defy the orders of the Court.

¶28

Fact remains, despite there being specific directions, the petitioners were not issued any posting order and to that extent, it seems that the

¶29

CONT.CAS(C) 85/2025 & other connected matters 4

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 01/07/2025 at 01:35:05

¶32

grievance raised by the petitioner is not without any merit or substance .

¶33

However at the same time, this Court cannot be ignorant about an important revelation made by the learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that the appointment letters with respect to the all the petitioners herein have already been cancelled vide order dated 13.02.2025. He submits that these have also been transmitted to the petitioners by speed post. It is baffling to understand as to why these communications were not sent to petitioner through e-mail, when the respondents already had their e-mail IDs.

¶34

Be that as it may, copies of all the letters cancelling such appointment letters have been brought today.

¶35

These have been shown to the Court.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are not aware about any such development and at his request, the copies of such orders have been handed over to him, during the course of the hearing.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would take appropriate action by challenging such cancellation by filing substantive petition.

¶38

In view of the abovesaid development and since the appointments have already been cancelled, unfortunately, this Court is in no position to come to the rescue of the petitioner.

¶39

Resultantly, all these applications are disposed of while giving liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate action, as permissible under

¶40

CONT.CAS(C) 85/2025 & other connected matters 5

¶41

¶42

law.

¶43