Delhi High Court
Brij Kishore Pushp vs Sh. Arun Goel & Anr. on 27 February, 2009
Author: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Reserved on: February 12, 2009
Date of Decision: February 27, 2009
CM 16704/2007 in Cont. Cas. (C) No. 602/2004
BRIJ KISHORE PUSHP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
Versus
SH. ARUN GOEL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
1. The petitioner in a disposed of Contempt Petition has now filed the
present application with the following prayers:-
a)summon the CEO/General Manager of the
Respondent/BRPL to explain his conduct. Respondents
be further directed to bring to the court the cheque of the
amount due to the petitioner in terms of the orders
passed by this Hon'ble Court for immediate delivery of
the petitioner and they may also be directed to personally
pay damages/compensation as well as the costs of this
application to the petitioner for unnecessarily completing
him to knock at the doors of this court time and again.
b)pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present application are that the
Petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1642 of 2002 against the erstwhile
Delhi Vidyut Board ('DVB') for a direction to grant third time-bound
promotional grade to Petitioner with effect from 30.7.1998 as well as all
consequential and retiral benefits. By an Order dated 8.12.2003 disposing of
W.P. (C) No. 1642 of 2002, this Court directed as under:
"(a) If in the DPC, which met in the month of May, 2001,
name of the petitioner was considered but
recommendations have been put in a sealed cover, same
shall be opened and given effect to.
(b) If the name of the petitioner was not considered by
the DPC review DPC be convened and name of the
petitioner be considered with effect from the date the
third time promotional scale has been granted to the
persons junior to the petitioners.
With the directions aforesaid, the writ petition stands
disposed of."
3. Even while the said writ petition was pending, DVB was unbundled
and split into different entities with effect from 1.7.2002 in terms of the
Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 ('DERA') and the Delhi Electricity
Transfer Scheme Rules 2001. The Delhi Power Company Ltd. (the Delhi
Transco Limited) ['DPCL/DTL'] became the successor entity to DVB as far
as the present case is concerned.
4. On 17.5.2004, this Court passed the following order in petitioner's
CM No. 6733 of 2004 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1642 of 2002 :-
"......Since persons junior to the petitioner were granted
benefit of the third time bound promotion scale w.e.f. 30.7.1998
vide order dated 31.5.2001, it is obvious that right of the
petitioner to be considered for grant of third time bound
promotion scale has to be w.e.f. 30.7.1998........."
5. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the present Contempt Case (C) No. 602
of 2004 on 16.8.2004. A reply was filed on 21.7.2007 by BSES Rajdhani
Power Limited (BRPL) stating that judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.R.Jain & others, LPA 98/2005,
decided on 30th March, 2006, was not applicable to BRPL since it was not a
party to the said judgment. It was further claimed that BRPL filed Writ
Petition (C) No. 550 of 2005 in this Court with regard to payment of past
liabilities of employees of erstwhile DVB. After dismissal of the said writ
petition, BRPL approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Its Appeal is
registered as C.A. No. 4270 of 2006 and is pending. It is claimed that "it is
only after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that any
further action can be taken in the matter concerning the petitioner by the
non-applicant/BSES."
6. However, this Court on 24th August, 2007 disposed of petitioner's
contempt petition by directing BRPL to implement the judgment dated
8.12.2003 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1642 of 2002 within a
period of four weeks and in any event not later 24.9.2007. It was left open to
BRPL to inform the petitioner that its compliance is without prejudice to its
contentions in its pending appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and would
be subject to final orders that may be passed thereon.
7. Subsequently, even a review petition filed by respondent/BRPL was
dismissed by this Court on November 02, 2007.
8. Thereafter, petitioner filed present application stating that even though
there was no stay of order dated 24th August, 2007 whereby present
contempt petition was disposed of, yet respondents had not complied with
the said order. In the said application, it was further stated that even costs of
Rs. 5,000/- imposed by this Court had not been paid to petitioner.
9. Respondents in their reply to present application have pointed out that
costs of Rs. 5,000/- had already been paid to petitioner and further that
petitioner was duly considered by a DPC constituted by erstwhile DVB and
on its recommendation a third time bound promotion was granted to
petitioner on 19th October, 2001 with effect from 21st March, 2001. In the
reply it was further stated that petitioner was involved in a vigilance case in
which penalty of "CENSURE" was imposed on him by erstwhile DVB vide
its order dated 20th March, 2001. In view of the aforesaid penalty imposed
on 20th March, 2001, it was submitted that petitioner had been granted, in
accordance with Rules, third time bound promotion scale from immediately
next day of imposition of penalty of "CENSURE".
10. Though no rejoinder was filed by petitioner, yet Mr. R.K. Saini,
learned Counsel for petitioner contended that in view of specific directions
given by this Court on 8th December, 2003 and 17th May, 2004, petitioner
had to be granted third time bound promotion scale with effect from 30 th
June, 1998.
11. I may mention that present application is confined only to non-
implementation of order dated 24th August, 2007 and, therefore, petitioner in
present application cannot agitate the issue that respondents were bound in
law to ignore punishment of "CENSURE" imposed upon petitioner. In fact,
there is no averment/allegation to this effect.
12. Moreover, in my view, petitioner's submission is untenable in law
inasmuch as when the orders dated 8th December, 2003 and 17th May, 2004
were passed, it was not brought to the knowledge of this Court that a penalty
of "CENSURE" had been imposed by DVB on 20th March, 2001.
13. Further, under Contempt of Courts Act, to constitute a civil contempt,
there must be a willful disobedience of a specific direction given by a Court.
Since, the issue of "CENSURE" was not raised before this Court, when it
passed orders dated 8th December, 2003 and 17th May, 2004, it cannot be
said that respondents were bound in law to ignore the said punishment.
14. Consequently, present application is dismissed but petitioner is
granted liberty, if so permissible and in accordance with law, to challenge
respondents' action of imposing CENSURE as well as of granting third time
bound promotion scale from next date of imposition of punishment of
"CENSURE".
15. With the aforesaid observations, present application is dismissed but
with no order as to costs.
FEBRUARY 27, 2009 MANMOHAN, J
RN
