Delhi High Court - Orders
Shri Phool Singh vs Shri Neeraj Semwal on 5 December, 2023
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 257/2022
SHRI PHOOL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv.
versus
SHRI NEERAJ SEMWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
counsel with Mrs. Taniya Ahlawat,
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.
Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam,
Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 05.12.2023
1. This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for violation of the judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 6846/2018 titled as "Shri Phool Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation". Para 6 of the order reads as under:
"6. Having heard the learned counsels and perused the record, we find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The effect of the petitioner's suit being decreed and his termination being set aside was that he continued in service throughout. That decree has been confirmed by this Court in the second appeal. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, he has to be treated in continuous service till the date of his superannuation except that, he would not be entitled to salary for the period December 2003-January 2004 till February 2008. The respondents are, therefore, directed to re-fix the pay This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2023 at 22:49:20 of the petitioner on notional basis till the date of his superannuation and on that basis to re-fix his pension and other retiral dues. The same should be paid within the next three months."
2. Ms. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is now aggrieved by non grant of notional promotion and the consequential benefits from that notional promotion to the petitioner.
3. Ms. Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel reiterates that para 6 of the judgment only directs to re-fix the pay of the petitioner to the notional basis and re-fix the pension and other retiral dues, the same has duly been done and there is no direction of notional promotion in the order.
4. If the notional promotion is granted to the petitioner, this Court in contempt would be reading the words which the judgment does not contain.
5. I am in agreement with the submissions of Ms. Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel. The Contempt Court cannot read or impute expressions in a judgment when the same are not contained therein.
6. The expression that the petitioner must be granted notional promotion has not been mentioned in the order dated 09.07.2019 and hence the respondent cannot be held guilty of non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment dated 09.07.2019.
7. In this view of the matter, the contempt petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to agitate the question of notional promotion in accordance with law.
JASMEET SINGH, J DECEMBER 5, 2023/DM Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2023 at 22:49:20