Delhi High Court
Vikas Kaushik & Anr. vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors. on 14 November, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Tushar Rao Gedela
$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 201/2024, CM APPLs. 930/2024 & 931/2024
VIKAS KAUSHIK & ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Adv.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
& ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra and Ms.
Sriparna Chatterjee, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 14.11.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. OA 1649/2017 was disposed of by the Central Administrative
Tribunal1 vide order dated 19 April 2021, which directed thus:
"5. It is evident from the impugned order dated 08.02.2017 that
competent authority of the respondents have accorded approval for
the Recruitment Rules (RRs) to the post of JE(E) in Electrical
Department may providing herein provision for consideration of
Electrician in Civil Engineering Department to the post of JE(E) in
Electricity Department for promotion. More than four years have
lapsed, however, such decision of the Chairman, NDMC has not
been given effect to by the respondents till date.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered view that the present OA is disposed of with direction
to the respondents to amend the RRs in terms of the aforesaid
decision of the Chairperson, NDMC in a time bound manner.
1 "Tribunal" hereinafter
6. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of with direction to the
respondents to amend the RRs for the post of JE(E) in Electrical
Department providing therein provision for consideration of
promotion of Electrician in Civil Engineering Department to the
post of JE(E) in Electricity Department as expeditiously as possible
and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order."
2. Alleging that the aforesaid directions had not been complied
with and that, therefore, the respondent/NDMC had committed wilful
and contumacious disobedience of the aforesaid order dated 19 April
2021, the petitioner instituted CP 36/2022 before the Tribunal, for
initiation of contempt proceedings against the allegedly delinquent
contemnors.
3. In the said contempt petition, the petitioner had filed MA
3905/2023 for impleading the Union Public Service Commission2 as a
further respondent in the contempt proceedings.
4. The said MA 3905/2023 was dismissed by the Tribunal with
costs of ₹ 50,000/- vide order dated 23 November 2023. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner is before this Court in the present writ petition.
5. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, who appears for the NDMC, submits that,
pursuant to the aforesaid order, the USPC has approved the
amendment of the RRs and that, on or before 18 November 2024, the
NDMC would be forwarding the draft amended RRs to the Ministry
of Home Affairs3 for approval so that they could be notified.
2 "UPSC" hereinafter
3 "MHA" hereinafter
6. Ms. Amita Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has also
handed over, across the bar, documents indicating the proposed
amendments to the RRs, which is taken on record.
7. Though she prays that the respondent/NDMC may be bound to
an undertaking that the amendment would be finalized within a
specified period of time, Ms. Chopra submits that she cannot give an
undertaking as the matter has to be taken up by the MHA.
8. In view of the aforesaid supervening events which have taken
place, there can be no justified basis for allowing the contempt
proceedings before the tribunal to continue as the matter is now with
the MHA.
9. No cause remains, therefore, to allow the pending contempt
petition to continue before the Tribunal. Though Ms. Amita Singh
prays that the contempt petition may not be disposed of by this Court,
as the court is seized only with a challenge to the order passed in MA
3905/2023 in the said Contempt Petition, and that, if the Contempt
Petition is disposed of, the respondents may further delay the matter,
we are not inclined to agree. Allowing the contempt petition to
continue, once the respondents have purged the contempt, if any,
would be unfair and unjust. Contempt proceedings, once they do not
survive any further, cannot be permitted to continue merely as a
proverbial Damoclean sword over the heads of the respondents.
10. Accordingly, while the impugned order is quashed and set
aside, CP 36/2022 is also accordingly disposed of by discharging the
notice of contempt which was issued in the said case.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
NOVEMBER 14, 2024
m/ar
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
