Disposed¶22

Kusum Lata v. Dr Navlendra Kumar Singh, Addl. Director and Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2026CONT.CAS(C)/1650/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: contempt proceedings; Contempt of Court(s) Act 1971; non-compliance of interim order; delayed release of salary; compliance affidavit; costs Rs. 15,000/-; undertaking of no future delay; disposal of contempt petition. Bench: Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan (Judges, Delhi High Court). Outcome: proceedings closed and disposed of on 15.01.2026 after payment of salary, admission of delay in affidavit dated 31.12.2025, payment of costs, and assurance against future delay.

What did the court decide?

The Court recorded that the petitioner's salary had already been paid, as noticed in its order dated 13.11.2025, removing the subject matter of the contempt complaint. ¶10

Kusum Lata Vs Dr Navlendra Kumar Singh, Addl. Director and… — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~76

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1650/2025 KUSUM LATA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. (Counsel for the Petitioner appearance not given).

¶5

versus

¶6

DR NAVLENDRA KUMAR SINGH, ADDL. DIRECTOR AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain ASC, Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey, Mr. Sachin Garg, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶8

% 15.01.2026

¶9

The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, while alleging that interim order dated 02.04.2025, directing the Respondents to release Petitioner’s salary within a period of four weeks from the date of order, has not been complied with.

¶10

Admittedly, the salary of the Petitioner has already been paid as noticed in the order dated 13.11.2025, which reads as under:

¶11

“1. We find that, despite repeated complaints of the petitioner and orders of this Court, the respondents keep delaying the release of salary to the petitioner, thereby forcing the petitioner to approach this Court by way of contempt, and only thereafter, the salary of the petitioner is released. This time as well, the salary for the Month of July, 2025 till date has been released to the petitioner only after the filing of the present contempt petition.

¶12

2. As the salary has been released, we do not deem it necessary to proceed further with the present contempt petition. However, for forcing the petitioner to approach this Court by way of contempt,

¶13

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 17/01/2026 at 12:32:56

¶14

we impose costs on the officer due to whose lapse the salary could not be released to the petitioner in time. The respondents must identify such officer and inform us, by way of an affidavit, the particulars of such officer. Such officer shall pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner for this delay in the release of the salary.

¶15

3. We further make it clear that in case the salary of the petitioner is delayed again in the future, we may not take a lenient view of the delayed release of salary and may proceed with the contempt petition, if any, filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law and taking a strict view thereof.

¶16

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also getting a salary lesser than her counterparts, without any reason being assigned for the same.

¶17

5. In the affidavit that is to be filed by the respondents, the respondents must also disclose the reason for the disparity in the salary of the petitioner as compared to that of her counterparts.

¶18

6. Let the affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶19

7. List on 15th January, 2026.”

¶20

The Respondent has also filed a compliance affidavit dated 31.12.2025, admitting the delay in disbursal of the salary. Cost imposed by order dated 13.11.2025 is also stated to have been paid.

¶21

The learned counsel representing the Respondents, on instructions from the concerned authority, submits that in future there will not be any delay in release of the salary of the petitioner.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid facts, the present contempt proceedings are closed and disposed of.

¶23

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶24

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶25

JANUARY 15, 2026 DU

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 17/01/2026 at 12:32:56

Kusum Lata v. Dr Navlendra Kumar Singh, Addl. Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Lata v. Dr Navlendra Kumar Singh, Addl. Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.

Anup N Kothari and Anr. Vs Roopak N Kothari and Anr.

Rathina Sabapathi, President, Party for the Right of Other Backward Classes Vs Election Commission of India Represented by the Ms Shubhra Saxena, Director

Maharaj Singh & Ors. Vs Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.

Rahat Ali Vs Sh. Gyanesh Bharti, the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Patil Pranjal Lehensingh, Ias, Addl. Director (Education)

Ex Sgt Kamlesh Kumar Singh Vs Niten Chandra & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Sinha Vs Priyashree Sinha

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Savita Kumari Mann

Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Vs Anjana & Anr.

Vikas Saksena Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Development Authority Vs R. K. Gogia

Union of India Vs Inder Pal

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar