Disposed¶35

V K Vashisht v. T v Somnathana & Anr.

Delhi HC21 Jul 2026CONT.CAS(C)/462/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition; wilful disobedience; review DPC; Departmental Promotional Committee; promotion to Director; Cryptographic Cadre; Cabinet Secretariat; unfit; Union of India; Memorandum dated 20.02.2025; vacancy year 2010-11; W.P.(C) 7486/2019; SLP (Civil) Diary No. 26895/2024; Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT); limitation protection; V K Vashisht; compliance of court directions.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of, recording that the orders dated 15th March, 2024 stand complied with (review DPC held, petitioner found unfit); petitioner granted liberty to challenge the Memorandum dated 20th February, 2025 in accordance with law, with protection that limitation shall not bar relief if the petition is filed before the CAT within four weeks. ¶35

V K Vashisht Vs T v Somnathana & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether there was wilful disobedience by the respondents of the order dated 15th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 7486/2019. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The review DPC in terms of the directions in the order dated 15th March, 2024 has been held by the respondent-UOI, and the petitioner has been held unfit for promotion.

¶25

Key takeaways

The orders passed by this Court stand complied with.ratio¶31
If aggrieved by the decision declaring him unfit for promotion, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedies in accordance with law to challenge the Memorandum dated 20th February, 2025.ratio¶31
If the petitioner files the requisite petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) within four weeks from the date of the order, the issue of limitation shall not come in the way of the relief sought.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case (CONT.CAS(C)) — Alleged wilful disobedience of Division Bench order dated 15.03.2024 in W.P.(C) 7486/2019 (V.K. Vashisht v. Union of India and Anr.), which had directed a review DPC for the post of Director reckoning the petitioner's seniority as Deputy Director from 16.07.2007 till superannuation — SLP (Civil) Diary No. 26895/2024 against that order disposed of by the Supreme Court on 20.12.2024, leaving the petitioner free to pursue remedies if the DPC recommendation was adverse — Respondent-UOI held the review DPC and found the petitioner 'unfit' for promotion to the Grade of Director, Cryptographic Cadre, Cabinet Secretariat, vacancy year 2010-11, communicated vide Memorandum dated 20.02.2025 — Court holds the earlier orders stand complied with and disposes of the contempt petition — Petitioner granted liberty to challenge the Memorandum before the Central Administrative Tribunal; limitation not to come in the way if the petition is filed within four weeks.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 21^st July, 2026

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 462/2025 V K VASHISHT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Adv., along with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

T V SOMNATHANA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Advocate appearance not given.

¶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 order dated 15^th March, 2024, passed in W.P.(C) 7486/2019, titled as V.K. Vashisht Versus Union of India and Anr .

¶11

Vide order dated 15^th March, 2024, the Division Bench of this Court has passed directions in the following manner:

¶12

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:38:39

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that directions were given to the

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:38:39

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

respondent to hold review Departmental Promotional Committee (“DPC”) for the post of Director, vis-à-vis the DPC which may have been held for the said post when the petitioner became eligible by reckoning his seniority as Deputy Director, with effect from 16^th July, 2007, till his superannuation. 4. It is to be noted that against the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein had approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil), Diary No. 26895/2024 , which came to be disposed of, vide order dated 20^th December, 2024, in the following manner:

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:38:39

¶20

Page 3 of 5

¶21

Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 20^th December, 2024, passed by the Supreme Court, clearly shows that the Supreme Court has given a categorical finding that, in the event the DPC making recommendation is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue his remedy, in accordance with law.

¶22

This Court notes that a counter affidavit dated 22^nd July, 2025 has been filed on behalf of respondent-Union of India (“UOI”), wherein, it is stated as follows:

¶23

“xxx xxx xxx

¶24

xxx xxx xxx”

¶25

Accordingly, it is clear that the review DPC in terms of the aforesaid directions passed in order dated 15^th March, 2024, has been held by the respondent-UOI, and the petitioner has been held to be unfit for promotion.

¶26

Pursuant to the aforesaid review DPC, a Memorandum dated 20^th

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:38:39

¶30

February, 2025, has been issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, to the petitioner, communicating to the petitioner that the review DPC has assessed the petitioner, and has found him ‘unfit’ for the promotion to the Grade of Director in the Cryptographic Cadre of Cabinet Secretariat for the vacancy year 2010-11.

¶31

Accordingly, this Court notes that the orders passed by this Court stand complied with. 10. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondentUOI to declare him as unfit for promotion, as aforesaid, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedies, in accordance with law, to challenge the aforesaid Memorandum dated 20^th February, 2025.

¶32

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall file an appropriate petition, before the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”).

¶33

He further submits that the issue of limitation, may not come before the petitioner.

¶34

Accordingly, it is clarified that in case the petitioner files the requisite petition before the CAT within a period of four weeks from today, the issue of limitation shall not come in the way of relief being sought by the petitioner.

¶35

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

¶36

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶37

JULY 21, 2026 /SK

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Page 5 of 5

¶40

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:38:39

V K Vashisht v. T v Somnathana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V K Vashisht v. T v Somnathana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Archana Bansal Vs Prof Yogesh K Tyagi & Ors.

Harmeet Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Fedration of All India Private Itis Vs Ketan Patel and Anr.

Fedration of All India Private Itis Vs Sh. Ketan Patel and Ors.

Gp Capt Tarun SAHA,20171-L F(P) Vs Director General, Border Security Force & Ors.

Anand Moudgil Vs Niharika Singh and Others

Vimlendu Kumar Jha Vs Minal Bhatnagar

The Delhi Waqf Board Thr Its Chief Executive Officer Vs D Sarkar & Ors.

P.D. Gupta Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.

Chander Pal Singh Vs Kamlesh Nagpal

Harmeet Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Naresh Chauhan Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Trustline Securities Ltd. Vs Daya Shankar Panday

Rishi Datta Vs Union of India & Ors.