Disposed¶59

Dc Murmu v. Tv Somanathan and Ors.

Delhi HC22 Jul 2026CONT.CAS(C)/65/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court | CONT.CAS(C) 65/2025 | DC Murmu v. Vijay Ranjan & Ors. | Decided 22 July 2026 | Coram: Mini Pushkarna, J | Contempt/compliance petition alleging wilful disobedience of judgment dated 14.03.2023 in W.P.(C) 11167/2018 (recovery of Rs. 20,964/- set aside; refund with 6% interest; pension re-fixation arrears; Rs. 20,000/- costs) | Office Order dated 23.05.2023: Rs. 48,238/- refunded; costs paid | Court declined to entertain claims for further amounts absent specific directions; petitioner left free to pursue remedies in law | Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition disposed of as the sums directed by the judgment dated 14.03.2023 stand paid, with the petitioner left at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law for any other claim regarding amounts payable. ¶59

Dc Murmu Vs Tv Somanathan and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether there has been wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment dated 14th March, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) 11167/2018, i.e., whether the amounts directed therein (refund of Rs. 20,964/- with interest, re-fixation arrears, and costs of Rs. 20,000/-) stand paid to the petitioner. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

As shown by the Office Order dated 23rd May, 2023, the refund of Rs. 20,964/- along with the interest as calculated by the respondents has been refunded to the petitioner.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The cost of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the judgment dated 14.03.2023 has also been paid to the petitioner, proof whereof is filed before the Court.

¶24

Key takeaways

The sums as directed to be paid by the judgment dated 14th March, 2023 stand paid to the petitioner.ratio¶28
The Court cannot adjudicate any claim to further amounts payable to the petitioner in the absence of specific directions in the order, compliance of which is sought in the present proceedings.ratio¶56
If the petitioner has any other claim with regard to any other amount payable, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt/compliance petition (CONT.CAS(C)) alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Delhi High Court judgment dated 14th March, 2023 in W.P.(C) 11167/2018, whereby the recovery of Rs. 20,964/- effected pursuant to an order dated 01.08.2017 was held illegal and set aside, refund with interest @ 6% per annum computed from the date of recovery till actual payment was directed, outstanding arrears on account of re-fixation of revised pension were ordered to be released within six weeks, and costs of Rs. 20,000/- were imposed on the respondents. The Court noted the Office Order dated 23rd May, 2023 recording refund to the petitioner of Rs. 48,238/- (Rs. 20,964/- along with interest as calculated by the respondents) and proof of payment of the Rs. 20,000/- costs; learned counsel for the respondents further submitted, with reference to a Compliance Affidavit, that all amounts including re-fixation arrears stood paid. Holding that the sums directed to be paid by the judgment dated 14.03.2023 stand paid, and observing that it could not adjudicate any claim to further amounts in the absence of specific directions in the order whose compliance was sought, the Court disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioner at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law for any other claim. (Coram: Mini Pushkarna, J.)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 22^nd July, 2026

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 65/2025 DC MURMU .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. S.C. Soren, Adv. (Through VC) Mob: 9899499121 Email: [email protected] versus

¶6

VIJAY RANJAN & ORS. .....Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh and Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advs. for R-2 & 3 (Through VC)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

¶9

The present petition has been filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment dated 14^th March, 2023, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 11167/2018 .

¶10

It is to be noted that by way of the order dated 14^th March, 2026, following directions had been issued:

¶11

“xxx xxx xxx

¶12

12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.08.2017 is set aside and it is held that the impugned action of recovery of Rs.20,964/is illegal and against the law propounded by the Supreme Court. Respondent No.2 is accordingly directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,964/- to the Petitioner within a period of three weeks from

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶14

Page 1 of 15

¶15

today along with interest @ 6% per annum, computed from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment. If any payments remain outstanding to the Petitioner towards arrears on account of re-fixation of revised pension, due to pendency of the issue pertaining to the recovery, same shall also be released within six weeks.

¶16

13. This Court cannot help but notice that for an amount of Rs.20,964/-, Petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post from 17.10.2017, when he sent a legal notice, to the filing of an original application being I.A. No. 1795/2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was withdrawn as not maintainable and finally, the present writ petition which was filed in October. 2018. Even in this Court, Petitioner has been prosecuting the petition for the last 5 years and SPMCIL has been contesting the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.20,000/- payable to the Petitioner along with the refund, as directed above.

¶17

xxx xxx xxx”

¶18

Perusal of the aforesaid shows that the Court had directed refund of an amount of Rs. 20,964/- to the petitioner, along with an interest @ 6% per annum, computed from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment. Further, a cost of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed upon the respondents, to be paid to the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Office Order dated 23^rd May, 2023, wherein, an amount of Rs. 20,964/-, along with the interest as calculated by the respondents, has been refunded to the petitioner.

¶20

Thus, as per the aforesaid Office Order, an amount of Rs. 48,238/- has been refunded to the petitioner. The said Officer Order dated 23^rd May, 2023, reads as under:

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Page 2 of 15

¶23

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶24

It is further to be noted that the cost of Rs. 20,000/- has also been paid

¶25

to the petitioner, the proof of which, as filed before this Court, is reproduced as under:

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶27

Page 3 of 15

¶28

Accordingly, the sums as directed to be paid by the judgment dated 14^th March, 2023, stand paid to the petitioner.

¶29

This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶32

Page 4 of 15

¶33

appearing for the respondents that in terms of paragraph 12 of the judgment dated 14^th March, 2023, wherein, the Court had directed if any payments remain outstanding to the petitioner towards arrears on account of refixation of revised pension, the same shall also be released to the petitioner. 9. As per learned counsel appearing for the respondents, all the amounts stand paid to the petitioner. The relevant portions of the Compliance Affidavit in this regard, are reproduced as under:

¶34

“xxx xxx xxx

¶35

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶36

Page 5 of 15

¶37

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶38

Page 6 of 15

¶39

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶40

Page 7 of 15

¶41

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶42

Page 8 of 15

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶44

Page 9 of 15

¶45

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶46

Page 10 of 15

¶47

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶48

Page 11 of 15

¶49

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶50

Page 12 of 15

¶51

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶52

Page 13 of 15

¶53

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

¶54

Page 14 of 15

¶55

Per contra , it is the case advanced on behalf of the petitioner that full amounts have not been paid to the petitioner.

¶56

However, this Court cannot go into any such issues with regard to any further amounts, which are payable to the petitioner, in the absence of any specific directions in the order, compliance of which, is sought in the present proceedings.

¶57

In case the petitioner has any other claim with regard to any other amount payable to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedies, in accordance with law.

¶58

No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition.

¶59

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

¶60

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶61

JULY 22, 2026/ SK

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Page 15 of 15

¶64

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.07.2026 10:41:48

Dc Murmu v. Tv Somanathan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dc Murmu v. Tv Somanathan and Ors.

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

Ravi Offset Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrityunjay Kumar Jha

Lakhi Ram Vs Shri Anurag Jain & Ors.

V K Vashisht Vs T v Somnathana & Anr.

Trustline Securities Ltd. Vs Daya Shankar Panday

Franklin Institute of Medical Science Vs Anil Mittal

Kirti Vasan Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Breejesh Nirula Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ravi Prakash Sharma Vs Govind Mohan and Anr.

V K Vashisht Vs T v Somnathana & Anr.

Trustline Securities Ltd. Vs Daya Shankar Panday

Rishi Datta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr Jagjot Singh Vs Mrs Pawan Preet

Komal Vs Mohit Kumar

Lc Nueva Aif Vs Zyngo Ev Mobility Private Limited through Its Director Mr Prateek Yadav & Ors.