Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Verma vs M.M. Kutti & Ors on 19 May, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006
%
Date of Decision : 19.5.2009
Sanjeev Kumar Verma .... Petitioner
Through Petitioner in person
Versus
M.M. Kutti & Ors .... Respondents/Alleged
Contemnors
Through Ms. Usha Saxena, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? NO
V. K. SHALI, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that
his counsel is in some personal difficulty. A perusal of the order sheet
shows that on the last date of hearing i.e. 1st April, 2009 also the
counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused
the record. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against
the respondents. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that the
respondents have committed the contempt by disobeying the orders
passed by this Court dated 16th January, 2006.
Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006 Page 1 of 4
3. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on 16th January, 2006
this Court had disposed of the writ petitions in case titled Rajesh
Kumar Sharma & Anr Vs. MCD & Ors bearing W.P. (C) Nos. 20/2006
and 21/2006 wherein the respondents were directed to fill up two posts
of Technical Officer falling to the share of promotional quota. The
direction of filling up of these two posts was given on the basis of the
statement purported to have been made by one Mr. Tarun Sharma,
learned counsel appearing for the MCD in the said cases on 16th
January, 2006. It was also observed since the respondents had taken a
stand that the petitioner was being proceeded in the departmental
inquiry, therefore, his case will be kept by the Departmental Promotion
Committee in the sealed cover. This entire exercise was to be done by
the respondents at the earliest not later than three months from the
date of the order i.e. 16th January, 2006.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is as against the direction to fill up
two vacancies of the post of Technical Officer, the respondents have
filled up only one post of Technical Officer, and therefore, they have
willfully disobeyed the orders dated 16th January, 2006.
5. The counter affidavit has been filed by Smt. Renu K. Jagdev,
Director (Personnel), MCD wherein she has stated that there are three
posts of Technical Officer falling to the share of promotion quota. It is
further stated in the counter affidavit that one of the posts is filled up
by Mr. Pradeep Kapoor and against the second post, one Mr. Vinod
Kumar Vats has a substantive lien though presently he is working as
Deputy Director (Technical). This leaves the respondents only with one
Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006 Page 2 of 4
post vacant on regular basis and in terms of the directions passed by
this Court on 16th January, 2006. Steps have been taken to fill up this
one regular vacancy of Technical Officer. So far as the second post
against which a substantive lien of Mr. Vinod Kumar Vats who was
working as Deputy Director (Technical) is concerned, the said post
cannot be filled up on account of the lien of an incumbent named
therein.
6. A perusal of the counter affidavit clearly shows that the
respondents could have filled up only one post of Technical Officer
which was vacant on regular basis. So far as the second post is
concerned, though the same is vacant but as another person who is
working as Deputy Director (Technical) has a substantive lien against
the said post, it cannot be filled up till the time his lien comes to an
end. Though the learned counsel for MCD ought to have explained this
aspect to the Court at the time when the admission was made that
there are two vacancies but merely on account of the fact that there are
two vacancies and there is a direction passed by the learned Single
Judge on 16th January, 2006 does not mean that under the
circumstances where the respondents have given a reasonable
explanation of non filling of one vacancy of the Technical Officer this
will tantamount to willful or contumacious disobedience of the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I feel that though there may be
technical disobedience of order passed or the undertaking given to this
Court, but the same is not willful or contumacious or done with a view
Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006 Page 3 of 4
to lower the majesty of the Court. This is occurring only on account of
the fact that the second post is a post against which a person has a
substantive lien and till the time of his lien does not come to an end the
said second post cannot be filled up. I do not find prima facie any merit
in the contempt petition, accordingly, the notice for contempt is
discharged and the petition is dismissed.
May 19th 2009 V.K. SHALI, J.
KP
