Delhi High Court - Orders
Nasimuddin Ansari vs Satish Singh Irsme on 24 February, 2023
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1285/2022
NASIMUDDIN ANSARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tapas Das, Advocate
versus
SATISH SINGH IRSME ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Bharthi Raju, Sr. P.C. with Mr.
P.K. Bose, JD (Pers) DGBR
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 24.02.2023
1. The learned counsel for the Respondent is present along with JD (Pers) DGBR. He states that after the order dated 18.01.2023 was passed by this Court, he had communicated the said order to the Ministry of Defence on 31.01.2023.
2. He places reliance upon a letter dated 23.02.2023 received from under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, to contend that the issue is pending consideration and upon holding a review DPC, promotion order will be passed. He states, however, no date on which the compliance will be completed can be stated with certainty.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent has handed over a note dated 22.12.2022, issued by Director (Pers) for DGBR and relied upon the same to contend that since the vigilance communicated its clearance only on 22.12.2022, the compliance of the order dated 20.09.2019 has been delayed.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2019 had directed the Respondent to comply with the directions within four weeks, i.e., Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:24.02.2023 19:30:25 18.10.2019. He states that even if, it is accepted that this period of four weeks should have been reckoned from 22.12.2022 as urged by the Respondent, four weeks would have expired on 19.01.2023.
However, the Respondent has not complied with the order even as on date.
5. He states that this Court had taken note on the last date of hearing that the Petitioner is retiring on 28.02.2023 and therefore the non- implementation of the order is prejudicing his interest. He states that this Court passed a detailed order on 18.01.2023, giving a fair opportunity to comply with the order.
6. He places reliance on the letter dated 22.01.2020, annexed as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. He states that the Petitioner was informed as early as 22.01.2020 by the Joint Director (Admin) that the proposals for promotion as per order dated 20.09.2019 are under preparation. However, till date the promotion order has been withheld.
7. He has also relied upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Khare v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2584 to contend that the Respondent cannot be permitted to wilfully ignore compliance of the order and seeks strict directions to the Respondent.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties.
9. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that vide order dated 18.01.2023, after a detailed hearing, the Respondent had sought further time for the implementation of the order dated 20.09.2019. This Court directed that the Respondent shall ensure that there is no further delay in implementation of the said order. It was further directed that the same shall be complied within a period of four weeks.
10. The directions in the order dated 18.01.2023 were sufficiently clear to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:24.02.2023 19:30:25 caution the Respondent that this Court expected the Respondent to comply with the order without any further delay and most certainly before 24.02.2023.
11. The time granted by the Division Bench vide order dated 20.09.2019 has noted above expired on 18.10.2019. No extension of time was sought from the Division Bench and the Respondent has assigned to itself the discretion to take unlimited time to comply with the orders of this Court.
12. This Court takes note of the scant regard and casual approach of the Respondent towards the orders passed by this Court. The delay of almost four (04) years since 20.09.2019 and the fact that the order remains not complied with speaks volumes about the disregard of the Respondent for the orders of this Court.
13. This Court has been apprised that the concerned officer for the implementation of the judgment dated 20.09.2019 is Respondent No.1. This Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 had directed for the presence of Respondent No.1, if the order dated 20.09.2019 is not complied with. However, today, he is not present in Court.
14. As a last and final opportunity, this Court directs that Respondent No.1 shall be present in Court on the next date of hearing.
15. List on 28.02.2023 at 01:00 P.M.
16. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J FEBRUARY 24, 2023/rhc/kv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:24.02.2023 19:30:25