Delhi High Court
Sunny Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~126
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14458/2024, CM APPL. 60607/2024
SUNNY KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Jariyal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra, CGSC
with Mr. Aakash Kr. Singh, GP and Mr.
Tribhuvan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 15.10.2024
CM APPL. 60607/2024 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14458/2024
3. The prayer clause in this appeal reads thus:
"PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and
the submission made, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble High
Court may graciously please:
I. To allow the Writ Petition; and
II. To quash and set aside- the Impugned orders
dated 20.08.2024 of CAT(PB)NO. 40 of 2024 in O.A.
NO.1165/2020 Annexure P-1(colly), Order dated
07.08.2024 (Compliance Affidavit) (Annexure P-2),
Order dated 16.05.2024 (Speaking Order) Annexure P-3:
and
III. To Direct the respondents to issue offer of
Appointment with all consequential benefits w.e.f.
04.05.2020 onward; and
IV. To Direct the respondent to give seniority as per
the select list at the time of initial appointment in MTS on
Notational basis; and
V. To Direct the respondent to pay damages and
the cost to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-for
causing irreparable loss and mental agony; and
VI. To pass any such order/orders as may be
deemed fit regarding cost on the Respondents for their
illegal, arbitrary act and in defiance of Article 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India; and
VII. Any other writ order or directions as the
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in nature and circumstances
of the case in the interest of justice."
4. Of the prayers in this appeal, prayers III, IV and V cannot be
entertained by this Court in the first instance in view of the judgment
of the 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v
UOI1. Liberty would stand reserved with the petitioner to take up
these issues by way of a substantive challenge before the learned
Tribunal.
5. What survives is Prayer II, which assails order dated 20 August
1 (1997) 3 SCC 261
2024 passed in CP 40/2024. The order reads thus:
"ORDER (ORAL)
"At the outset, the learned proxy counsel for the
respondents submits that the respondents have passed a speaking
order dated 16.05.2024 in compliance of the direction of this
Tribunal issued on 10.04.2023, rejecting the case of the petitioner.
2. We find that since a detailed order has already been passed
by the respondents, which goes to the roots of the merits of the
case, the present CP stands closed, of course with liberty to the
petitioner to agitate his grievances in accordance with law, if so
required. Notices are discharged."
6. The operative portion of the judgment dated 10 April 2023
reads thus:
"5.1 In view of the above discussion, we dispose of the instant
OA quashing the order dated 04.05.2020 by virtue of which offer
of appointment issued to the applicant has been rejected. The
respondents are hereby directed to examine the case of the
applicant in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Avtar Singh's case (supra). In case the applicant is otherwise
found to be suitable/eligible and fit for being employed, he would
be offered appointment and extended other consequential benefits
notionally in terms of his merit position."
7. Following the aforesaid directions, the respondents passed a
detailed speaking order on 16 May 2024, which duly considered the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India2.
The submission of Mr. Jariyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is
that the consideration of the law in the aforesaid speaking order dated
16 May 2024 is not correct and that, in fact, the respondent has merely
adopted, once again, the stand which was urged before the learned
2 (2016) 8 SCC 471
Tribunal in the counter affidavit filed by way of response to OA
1165/2020.
8. Even if that be so, it cannot amount to contempt. Clearly, by
passing a speaking order in which the judgment in Avtar Singh was
taken into account, there has been substantial compliance with the
directions contained in the judgment dated 10 April 2023 passed in
OA 1165/2020.
9. Civil contempt action can be initiated only in the case of willful
and contumacious disobedience of an order passed by the Court. We
do not find any cause to interfere with the impugned order dated 20
August 2024, which holds that no cause for contempt survives and
grants liberty to the petitioner to challenge the speaking order dated 16
May 2024 by way of substantive proceedings in accordance with law.
10. Subject to reiteration of the liberty granted by the learned
Tribunal, the writ petition is dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
OCTOBER 15, 2024/aky
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
