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

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 885/2020 & CM APPL. 34035/2021

¶4

DALJIT KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Poonam, Advocate. versus

¶6

SRI. ANSHU PRAKASH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC with Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocates for UOI. Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh, Ms. Shriya Sharma and Ms. Jyoti Garg, Advocates for R-2.

¶7

Mr. Abhishek Chandra Mishra, Ms. Sarita Mehta, Ms. Diksha Belwal and Mr. Aas Mohmad, Advocates for R-3.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 05.01.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

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

¶12

“(a) Initiate contempt proceeding against the alleged contemnor for willfully and deliberately disobeying the judgment dated 12.2.2020 of this Hon'ble Court passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) 1605 of 2020 and direct them to re-fix Salary at par with their Junior Sh. Brij Mohan & Sh. P.N. LAL and to pay arrears arising out of refixation and all Consequential Benefits / Reliefs in Deptt. of Telecom / PSUs in which the Applicants herein got absorbed (in the interest of Service) i.e. Absorption in PSUs at appropriate Positions Commensurate with the Revised Last cadre in Deptt. of Telecom. and subsequent time to time Promotions and Payments

¶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 09/01/2026 at 11:18:01

¶15

Arrears of Revised Pay & Allowances in their Respective PSUs. Accordingly, the REVISION of Pension is also Prayed.

¶16

(b) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶17

Vide judgment dated 12.02.2020, the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 1605/2020 has passed the following directions:-

¶18

“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is more than 73 years of age and, to put a quietus to the matter, is willing to accept the same benefits which have been provided to Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswanath Pradhan, who were junior to him.

¶19

Mr. Abhay Kumar Sahay, learned Standing Counsel submits that he would examine the matter as to whether the petitioner can be granted the same benefits which were granted to Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswanath Pradhan.

¶20

Let this aspect of the matter be considered by the respondent within four weeks from today ; and the petitioner be informed about the same immediately thereafter.

¶21

7. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same in accordance with law. ”

¶22

(emphasis supplied)

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid direction with respect to the grant of benefits to the petitioners as has been granted to Sh. P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth, who were junior to them, has not been complied by the respondents. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits was to be considered within four weeks of the passing of the aforesaid order, however, respondents had passed the speaking

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 11:18:01

¶26

order after the expiry of said period. Therefore, the respondents are in wilful disobedience of the aforesaid directions.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the direction of the learned Division Bench was for consideration of the petitioners’ case for grant of the same benefits, as were granted to Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth, under due intimation to them. It is submitted that respondent No.1 has passed speaking orders with respect to the petitioners in compliance with the aforesaid directions. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits at par with Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth, has been duly considered in the said speaking order and the petitioners were also informed regarding the passing of their respective speaking orders.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Initially, the petitioners had filed OA No.1831/2018 which was disposed of by learned CAT, vide order dated 09.05.2018, at the stage of admission itself, without going into the other merits of the case, by directing the respondents to consider representations of the petitioners and to pass appropriate speaking and reasoned order thereon in accordance with law within 90 days from the receipt of a certified copy of said order. Thereafter, respondent No.2/BSNL passed speaking orders on 04.09.2019 stating that no consequential benefits of pay fixation including any pensionary benefits is accrued to the petitioners in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No.4389/2018 dated 21.01.2015. Thereafter, petitioners filed contempt petition, C.P. No.518/2018 in OA No.1831/2018, before learned CAT alleging wilful disobedience of directions passed by learned CAT vide order dated 09.05.2018 which was dismissed by learned CAT vide order dated

¶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 11:18:01

¶31

08.11.2019 by observing as under: -

¶32

“4. The Respondent No. 3 (MTNL) have also submitted their additional affidavit vide Diary No. 7282 dated 31.10.2019. It is pleaded that in compliance to the directions of the Tribunal dated 09.05.2018, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) called all the applicants to represent their respective grievances. However, the said applicants chose not to appear before DoT. Thereafter, the MTNL scrutinised the representation of three applicants, namely, Sh. V.P. Marwah, Sh, D.K. Agaarwal and Sh. Sudaarshan Khanria and disposed of the same by passing an speaking and reasoned order dated 10.10.2018 and communicated the same to each of the applicants.

¶33

In view of above, Since the directions of this Tribunal has been complied with. Thus, no contempt is made out.

¶34

Accordingly, the aforesaid CPs stand closed. Notices are discharged. Pending MAs also stand disposed of. The applicants have liberty to file an OA, if their grievance still subsists. No costs.”

¶35

Against the aforesaid order passed by learned CAT, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) 1605/2020 wherein, the aforesaid directions were passed by learned Division Bench to the effect that the respondents will examine the case of the petitioners whether they can be granted the same benefits which were granted to Sh. P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth, who were junior to them.

¶36

In pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.1 has placed on record respective speaking orders with respect to the petitioners respectively whereby, the claim of the petitioners for the grant of benefits on promotion and consequential pay including pensionary benefits was examined and in view of the same, the combined seniority in respect of SDE (T) Grade was recasted and copy of the same was also sent to the petitioners. It is further recorded, in the said order(s), that as there were no objections to the draft seniority to any of the petitioners, the same was stated as finalized. It is

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 11:18:01

¶39

pertinent to note that said speaking orders are on same terms, except for the particulars of the concerned petitioner. By way of illustration, one such speaking order dated 17.11.2020 passed by respondent No.1 with respect to petitioner No.3, Y.L. Sharma, is reproduced as under: -

¶40

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 11:18:01

¶41

”

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 11:18:01

¶44

The direction given by the learned Division Bench was for examination of the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits at par with Sh. P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth and under due intimation to the petitioners with liberty to assail the same in accordance with law. In the aforesaid speaking orders, respondent No.1 has examined the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits on promotion and consequential pay including pensionary benefits under due intimation to them. Regarding the delay in passing the speaking orders, it has been mentioned in the order(s) itself that the same was unintentional and was on account of Covid-19 lockdown. The submission of the petitioners that they have not been given benefits at par with Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth, cannot be adjudicated in the present contempt petition. The said grievance of the petitioners constitutes a fresh cause of action to avail of the opportunity of judicial review as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 291, wherein it was observed and held as under: -

¶45

“ 6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2( b ) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there

¶46

This is a digitally signed order.

¶47

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 11:18:01

¶48

is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.”

¶49

(emphasis supplied)

¶50

In view of the above, this Court in the present contempt jurisdiction cannot adjudicate the grievance of the petitioners and consider the case on merits with respect to their respective speaking orders. The same can be challenged by the petitioners by initiating appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law.

¶51

With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of.

¶52

Needless to state that the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge their respective speaking orders passed by respondent No.1 in accordance with law before the court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum.

¶53

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶54

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶55

JANUARY 5, 2026/bsr/ns

¶56

This is a digitally signed order.

¶57

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 11:18:01

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Skycom and Anr. Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Nibedita Ghose Vs National Medical Commission

Smt Roop Wati Vs Sh Vinod Kumar

Amresh Vs Sh Gyanesh Bharti and Anr.

Ravinder Lal Airi Vs Sh. Shashvat Saurabh, the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Leena Anand Vs Mr. R.K.Paul & Ors.

Umesh Nanda Vs Depinder Singh Dhesi & Anr.

Niruti Yadav & Anr. Vs Nitin Yadav

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

Nibedita Ghose Vs National Medical Commission

Col a. K. Arora (Retd.) & Ors. Vs Directorate General Resettlement (Dgr) & Anr.

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

Surinder Verma Vs Suresh Kumar Gupta

Surinder Verma Vs Suresh Kumar Gupta