Disposed¶34

Yogender Aswal v. Rajendra Prasad Sati ,Director Ndmc

Delhi HC6 Jan 2026CONT.CAS(C)/290/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CONT.CAS(C) 290/2019; contempt of courts; Sections 11 and 12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; Yogender Aswal; Rajendra Prasad Sati; NDMC; DESU; Draftsmen pay scale parity; Electrical Department; TA No. 30/2011; CAT Principal Bench; judgment 23.08.2018; W.P.(C) 2337/2013; Division Bench order 04.10.2018; office order 27.12.2019; pay fixation; Rs. 5400; petition not pressed; liberty to challenge pay grade; competent forum; Amit Sharma J; disposed 06.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not pressed; petitioner granted liberty to challenge the fixation of his pay grade at the scale of Rs. 5400/- before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum, in accordance with law. ¶34

Yogender Aswal Vs Rajendra Prasad Sati ,Director Ndmc — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be proceeded against and punished for contempt of the order dated 04.10.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 2337/2013, i.e., alleged non-compliance with the CAT's pay-parity directions for NDMC Draftsmen.

¶13

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, did not wish to press the present contempt petition, with liberty to challenge the fixation of the pay grade at the scale of Rs. 5400/- before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of as not pressed.

¶34

Key takeaways

The petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse with respect to his contention (challenge to the pay-grade fixation) as permissible in law before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by Yogender Aswal against Rajendra Prasad Sati, Director, NDMC, seeking punishment for contempt of the order dated 04.10.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 2337/2013, wherein the Division Bench had affirmed the directions in the CAT's judgment dated 23.08.2018 (TA No. 30/2011) to grant Draftsmen of NDMC's Electrical Department pay scale parity with corresponding DESU draftsmen w.e.f. 01.04.1972, with consequential benefits, pay re-fixation and arrears. NDMC thereafter issued an office order dated 27.12.2019 regarding the petitioner's pay fixation. Learned counsel, on instructions, did not wish to press the petition. The High Court (Amit Sharma, J) disposed of the petition as not pressed, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the pay-grade fixation at the scale of Rs. 5400/- and to take recourse before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum in accordance with law; pending applications were also disposed of.

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 290/2019

¶4

YOGENDER ASWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJENDRA PRASAD SATI ,DIRECTOR NDMC....Respondent Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, SC with Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Ishita Mohanty and Ms. Ishika Jain, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 06.01.2026

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

The present petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeks the following prayers:

¶13

“(i) Pass an order issuing contempt against the Respondents and punish them in accordance with law for the contempt of the order dated 04.10.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 2337/2013;

¶14

(ii) Pass any such orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶15

Vide judgment dated 23.08.2018 in TA No. 30/2011, the learned CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi had passed the following directions:

¶16

“10. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this TA with the direction to the Respondents to grant pay scale to the various categories of the Draftsmen working with them in their Electrical Department at par with the corresponding categories of draftsman working in DESU w.e.f. 01.04.1972 in terms of resolution No.1 dated 07.01.1974 passed by the Council of the Respondent NDMC, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, under intimation to the Applicant

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 09/01/2026 at 11:18:17

¶19

with all consequential benefits. The Respondents shall also re-fix the pay of the Applicants from the aforesaid date and accordingly and pay up-to-date arrears within the aforesaid period. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶20

Subsequently, the aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent in W.P.(C) 2337/2013 and connected matter and vide judgement dated 04.10.2018, the learned Division Bench while dismissing the aforesaid petitions had passed the following order:

¶21

It is apparent from the factual narrative that S.S. Committee was constituted undoubtedly to address the pay scales concern and the anomalies which then existed in the-erstwhile DESU/DVB: to that extent, the NDMC has a point. But the matter does not stop here. The pay scales which the DESU/DVB granted to its employees on various dates in the years 1974, 1986 etc. fueled unrest in other organisations. One such is erstwhile New Delhi Municipal Committee, the employment to which the present respondents and other class belong. Their grievance led NDMC i.e. the petitioners before the court adopting SS Committee's recommendations with respect to various cadres. Thus, parity was something that the NDMC itself recognized and gave effect to entirely on the basis of SS Committee. Having done that at the time of fitment and fixation in the later pay scales, which were prescribed for various classes of posts in implementation of pay Commission's recommendation arose, the NDMC could not have - consistent that its past conduct, ignore the previous parity and refuse to accord the replacement scales. Both the orders of the CAT - though they deal with the different cadre in the NDMC, are premised upon the logic i.e. parity once established, cannot be ignored except for good and valid reasons. No reasons were forthcoming in either of the proceedings which the respondent/applicants initiated before the CAT, to justify disparity which had ensued on account of erroneous implementation of 6^th Pay Commission's recommendations. Consequent directions by the CAT were therefore reasonable and justified. The conclusions in the impugned order are sound and therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. The petitioners are therefore directed to give effect to CAT's orders within ten weeks from today and pass individual pay fixation and

¶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 09/01/2026 at 11:18:17

¶24

fitment orders.”

¶25

Subsequent thereto, an office order dated 27.12.2019, regarding the pay fixation of the petitioner in compliance of the aforesaid directions, was passed by the respondents/NDMC, and the same is reproduced as under: -

¶26

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 09/01/2026 at 11:18:17

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 09/01/2026 at 11:18:17

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 09/01/2026 at 11:18:17

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 09/01/2026 at 11:18:17

¶33

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions of the latter, does not wish to press the present petition, with liberty to challenge the fixation of the pay grade of the petitioner at the scale of Rs. 5400/- before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

¶34

The present petition is disposed of as not pressed.

¶35

Needless to state that the petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse with respect to the aforesaid contention as permissible in law before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum.

¶36

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

¶37

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶38

JANUARY 06, 2026/bsr/db

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 09/01/2026 at 11:18:17

Yogender Aswal v. Rajendra Prasad Sati ,Director Ndmc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogender Aswal v. Rajendra Prasad Sati ,Director Ndmc

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

Daljit Kumar & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Vidya Parkash Gupta, Age 74 Years, & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Skycom and Anr. Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Nibedita Ghose Vs National Medical Commission

Saba Hassan Vs Vishal Pal Singh, the Commsissioner of Customs

Shivam Dhingra Vs Samiksha Ahuja and Anr.

Federation of Nehru Place Associations Vs Urmila Devi & Ors.

Anand Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs Shri Govind Mohan and Ors.

Daljit Kumar & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Vidya Parkash Gupta, Age 74 Years, & Ors. Vs Sri. Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Saurabh Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs Directorate General of Resettlement & Ors.

Surinder Verma Vs Suresh Kumar Gupta

Surinder Verma Vs Suresh Kumar Gupta

Umesh Nanda Vs Depinder Singh Dhesi & Anr.