M.P. Dikshit vs Omesh Saigal And Anr.
2001 Latest Caselaw 37 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. On 28.8.98, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner regarding review of the suspension allowance in the light of revision of pay scales by the Vth Pay Commission. The Department was directed to take decision within four weeks and communicate the same to the petitioner. It appears that the decision was not taken within the time fixed by the Court and the present petition was, therefore, filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. On a notice being issued, respondent has filed reply. Mr. Nathu, Addl. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT, Delhi in his affidavit has at the outset expressed regrets and has apologised for the delay caused in the department in taking decision on the representation of the petitioner. It is submitted in the affidavit that the order of the Court was not communicated to the officers of the respondent by Counsel who had appeared in Court on 28.8.98 and it was only on 11.9.98, that the copy of the decision of the Court was communicated to the respondent. It is further stated that since the matter was already under consideration, the copy of the order of the Court came to the concerned branch only on 20.10.98. A decision was thereafter taken by the respondent and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 4.12.98. A decision was also taken on the question of payment of pension to the petitioner on 14.1.99 and was communicated to the petitioner on 4.2.99. It is, therefore, stated in the affidavit that there is no intentional and willful delay on the part of the respondent in taking the decision and the delay, if any, was on account of certain administrative reasons mentioned above.

2. I have gone through the record and am satisfied that there was no intentional or willful delay on the part of the respondent in taking the decision pursuant to the order dated 28.8.98 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

3. This petition is even otherwise not maintainable inasmuch as while the order directing the respondent to take decision was passed on 28.8.98, no proceedings have been initiated till date against the respondent for punishing them for their having allegedly committed contempt of this Court. In Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal and Anr., it was held by the Supreme Court that in case where notice has been issued to the alleged contemnor to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them such a notice is anterior to the initiation of the contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnor and in case proceedings are actually not initiated within one year of the date of alleged commission of contempt the Court cannot thereafter continue the proceedings against the alleged contemnor. There is thus no case to initiate any proceedings against the respondent. The petition has no merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

4. Petition Dismissed.