Disposed¶19

Manoj Kumar v. Govind Mohan & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026CONT.CAS(C)/1170/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CONT.CAS(C) 1170/2026, High Court of Delhi, Mini Pushkarna, J. (oral), decided 13 July 2026. Contempt petition by Manoj Kumar against respondents Govind Mohan & Anr. (UOI, through CGSC Bhagwan Swarup Shukla with Shreya Mishra and Praveen Gupta) alleging wilful disobedience of judgment dated 03.10.2023 in W.P.(C) 11488/2018 (Kailash Chand Saini v. UOI). Compliance order dated 26.05.2025 by DG, ITBF alleged to be non-speaking and contrary to Ajay Suryavanshi, W.P.(C) 1611/2015 and 3046/2015 (ITBP cadre review, pioneer cadre). Held: alleged discrepancy in compliance order no ground for contempt; liberty to challenge order dated 26.05.2025; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of with directions; no contempt action initiated; petitioner granted liberty to challenge the order dated 26.05.2025 in accordance with law.

Manoj Kumar Vs Govind Mohan & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~112

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 13^th July, 2026

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 1170/2026 MANOJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. G.S. Chauhan, Advocate (M: 9811346171)

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVIND MOHAN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Ms. Shreya Mishra, Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocates for UOI

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):

¶10

The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 03^rd October, 2023, passed in W.P.(C) 11488/2018 , titled as Kailash Chand Saini and Ors. Versus Union of India & Anr.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondents have now passed an order dated 26^th May, 2025, however, the same is a complete eyewash, and has been passed in a cursory manner without addressing the grievances of the petitioner, in terms of the judgment dated 03^rd October, 2023.

¶12

It is further submitted that the respondents have not considered any of the principles pertaining to the cadre review exercise of Indo-Tibetan Border Police (“ITBP”), as laid down by this Court in the case of Ajay Suryavanshi and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) 1611/2015 and 3046/2015 , decided on 22^nd April, 2015.

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 12:33:04

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the operational and functional requirements of the pioneer cadre were explained in detail, along with comparative charts reflecting the percentage of the number of higher posts in other Non-General Duty (“GD”) cadres of the ITBF, and the discrimination against the said pioneer cadre. However, the respondents have not considered the materials that were provided in the writ petition and during the personal hearing. Thus, the order dated 26^th May, 2025 is a non-speaking order.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that pursuant to the judgment dated 03^rd October, 2023, the order dated 26^th May, 2025 already stands passed by the Directorate General, ITBF, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

¶17

Merely because there is some alleged discrepancy as per the petitioner in the order passed by the respondent, the same cannot be a ground for initiating contempt proceedings.

¶18

In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dated 26^th May, 2025, passed by the respondents, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition, is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶21

JULY 13, 2026/ au

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 12:33:04

Manoj Kumar v. Govind Mohan & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. Govind Mohan & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeshwar Dayal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Ms v Vidyavathi

Mithlesh Solanki Vs MCD & Ors.

Mohd. Shafir Vs Shri Sanjeev Khirwar Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Deepali

Jaspreet Singh Anand & Anr. Vs Gudev Singh Anand & Ors.

Darshna Malik & Ors. Vs Sanjeev Khirwar & Anr.

Rajeshwar Dayal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Ms v Vidyavathi

N.C. Bakshi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nikhat Parveen@Khusboo Khatoon Vs Rafique@Sillu

Market Welfare Association Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors.