Dismissed¶20

Rajesh Kumar v. Omvir Shokin & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Apr 2026CONT.CAS(C)/250/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC (Justice Amit Sharma, 06.04.2026), CONT.CAS(C) 250/2017: contempt petition by Rajesh Kumar vs Omvir Shokin & Anr. seeking notice, punishment and compliance with the order dated 10.01.2017 in W.P.(C) 6963/2016 (suspension allowance payment; suspension lapsed 15 days after 14.10.2015 absent S.8(4) approval, Delhi School Education Act, 1973). Payment of substance allowance evidenced by mail dated 29.04.2025 (PAO IX, Old Secretariat); counsel conceded payment; petition dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of with liberty to pursue salary grievance; pending CM APPL. 40273/2024 disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; leave granted to withdraw with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in respect of the petitioner's salary grievance; pending application(s) disposed of.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Omvir Shokin & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent nos. 1 and 2 ought to be issued notice, punished and directed to comply with the order dated 10/01/2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6963/2016 by Hon'ble Justice Valmiki J. Mehta. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The Court took on record a document/mail dated 29.04.2025 handed up by respondents' counsel confirming release and deposit of the substance allowance in respect of Sh. Rajesh Kumar (Chownkidar) through PAO IX, Old Secretariat, Delhi.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Counsel for the petitioner conceded that the suspension allowance had already been paid, and sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law regarding his salary grievance.

¶19

Key takeaways

The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.ratio¶20
Liberty expressly preserved to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings as available in law.ratio¶21
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 petition (CONT.CAS(C) 250/2017) by Rajesh Kumar against Omvir Shokin & Anr., praying that respondent nos. 1 & 2 be noticed, punished and directed to comply with Hon'ble Justice Valmiki J. Mehta's order dated 10/01/2017 in W.P.(C) No. 6963/2016. That order had recorded that, for want of Director of Education approval required under Section 8(4) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the petitioner's suspension lapsed 15 days after 14.10.2015, and that unpaid suspension allowance was to be paid within four weeks, without prejudice to disciplinary proceedings under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. At the hearing, a mail dated 29.04.2025 confirming release and deposit of the substance allowance through PAO IX, Old Secretariat, Delhi was taken on record; counsel for the petitioner conceded receipt and sought withdrawal with liberty on his residual salary grievance. Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the petition as withdrawn and disposed of, expressly preserving liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings; pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 250/2017 & CM APPL. 40273/2024

¶4

RAJESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. C.S. Sharma, Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Mr. Satvik Shukla, Advs. versus OMVIR SHOKIN & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey, Mr. Sachin Garg, Advs. for R-1/DOE. Mr. Mukesh Bhardwaj, Adv. through Vc.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

% 06.04.2026

¶8

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶9

The present petition has been filed under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking the following prayers: -

¶10

“ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice and punish the respondents no. 1 & 2. and direct them to comply with the W.P.(C) No. 6963/2016 order dated 10/01/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Justice Mr. Valmiki J. Mehta, Judge, Delhi High Court.

¶11

Any other order or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be pleased to pass in favour of the petitioner and against the Contemnor nos. 2 & 3, in the interest and furtherance of justice.”

¶12

Vide order dated 10.01.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6963/2016, learned Single Judge of this Court had passed the following directions: -

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 08/04/2026 at 11:37:54

¶15

“2. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3/school states that since no approval was given by the Director of Education to the suspension of the petitioner, and which is required under Section 8(4) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, suspension of the petitioner lapsed on the expiry of 15 days from 14.10.2015 i.e petitioner is no longer in suspension after 15 days from 14.10.2015.

¶16

In view of the above, this writ petition has become infructuous except on a limited issue that petitioner states that petitioner has not been paid suspension allowance during the period of suspension. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that if the suspension allowance has not already been paid, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. This is however without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 may take against the petitioner, of course in accordance with the relevant provisions, circulars, guidelines etc etc under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.”

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has handed up in the Court today a document/ mail dated 29.04.2025, which is taken on record and the same reads as under: -

¶18

“With due respect I inform you that substance allowance in r/o. Sh. Rajesh Kumar (Chownkidar) has been released and deposited in the account of concerned employee through PAO IX Old Secretariat, Delhi (copy of the bill attached).”

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that suspension allowance has already been paid. He seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law with respect to his grievance with regard to salary.

¶20

The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.

¶21

Needless to state that the petitioner will always be at a liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as available in law.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 08/04/2026 at 11:37:54

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

¶26

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶27

APRIL 6, 2026/ kr/sg

¶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 08/04/2026 at 11:37:54

Rajesh Kumar v. Omvir Shokin & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Omvir Shokin & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nain Singh Vs Alok Joshi & Anr.

G. Anand and Ors. Vs Sh. Govind Mohan and Anr.

Jagdish & Anr. Vs Arun Kumar Jha & Anr.

Dilraj Ahmad Vs Ashutosh Tripathi

Kuldip Kaur Luthra Vs Sarabjit Singh & Anr.

Chandra Shekhar Vs S.K. Meena and Ors.

Akash Sharma Vs Sh N. Saravana Kumar,Ias Vc DDA

Hemant Bhagat Vs Satnarain Mittal & Anr.

Nain Singh Vs Alok Joshi & Anr.

Vimlendu Kumar Jha Vs Minal Bhatnagar

Iqbal Ahmed Vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta

Smt Suman Bharti Vs Shri Karam Chand

M/S Entasis India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Rajan Bajaj, Director M/S Medisphere Marketing Ltd.

Rattan Polycham Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Madan Mohan Roy & Ors.