Delhi High Court
Rajbir Singh vs Rajeev Verma, ... on 11 September, 2013
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 701/2013
RAJBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Vaishalee Mehra, Advocate.
versus
RAJEEV VERMA, CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING
DIRECTOR, DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Abhey N. Das, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
This petition is predicated on the non compliance of the judgment of
this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.2739/2004, dated 28th May, 2013,
whereby the following directions were issued:
"23. Considering the overall scenario, I,
therefore, direct that the petitioner be reinstated in
service from the date of his removal with
continuity in service for all purposes including pay
fixation, seniority and for pensionary benefits.
The petitioner is also awarded lump sum
compensation, in lieu of back wages, of Rs.4
Lakhs. The compensation shall be paid within 8
weeks failing which the same carry interest @ 8%
per annum from the date hereof till realization.
The petitioner shall also be entitled to Costs
Cont.Cas(C) No.701/2013 page 1of 3
quantified at Rs.25,000/-."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that no steps whatsoever have been
taken till date towards the implementation of the said judgment. It is also
alleged that the petitioner has also separately intimated the respondent with
regard to the aforesaid judgment, on 8th July, 2013 and 15th July, 2013;
besides having repeatedly reported for duty as envisaged in the aforesaid
judgment.
3. Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings in
contempt be not initiated against him.
4. Mr. Abhey N. Das, Advocate, enters appearance and accepts notice.
He states that, as a matter of fact, the respondent has filed a Letters Patent
Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C)
No.2739/2004 delivered on 28th May, 2013, which is the subject matter of
the instant contempt petition, by filing No.128666/2013. He submits that
the appeal was initially filed on 26th August, 2013 and has been refiled
thereafter on 6th September, 2013.
5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the filing of any
such appeal should have no effect on the instant proceedings which are
predicated on the non-compliance of the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge on 28th May, 2013, more so, since no ad interim stay of the
aforesaid judgment has been obtained by the respondent. I do not agree. To
my mind, since the respondent has moved an appeal in the matter, it would
not be a fit case for initiation contempt proceedings. In this context, I might
Cont.Cas(C) No.701/2013 page 2 of 3
refer to a decision of a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal
No.2253/2000, decided by the Full Bench on 20th August, 2001 in Ram
Avadh Singh v. Lalji Yadav & Ors., which reads as follows:
"Leave granted.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are
of the opinion that this is not a fit case where
proceedings for contempt should have been initiated,
especially in view of the fact that against the judgment
which was delivered against the appellant an appeal
had been filed and neither the appeal nor even the stay
application has been decided. In view of the pendency
of the said stay application, the contempt proceedings
are ordered to be withdrawn. If the stay application is
dismissed, it would then be open to the respondents to
take further action. The High Court should dispose of
the stay application as expeditiously as possible and
without granting any further adjournment.
The appeal is disposed of.
...................J
(B.N. KIRPAL)
...................J
(N. SANTOSH HEGDE)
..................J
(BRIJESH KUMAR)"
6. Consequently, in view of the submissions of the respondent, and in
the light of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the instant petition
is dismissed.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013/dr
Cont.Cas(C) No.701/2013 page 3 of 3
