Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suresh Kumar Rajput vs Dharmendra Chief Secretary & Ors Gnctd on 27 May, 2025
1
CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024
Item No.23(i)/C-6
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
CP No. 152/2025
in
OA No. 1309/2024
This the 27th day of May, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput,
Aged about 59 years
(disabled since 17-11-2018)
Flat No. B-265,D.A.Flats
Timarpur, Delhi - 110054
Through
Himani Rajput
Eldest Daughter of incompetent Applicant
Flat No. B-265
Delhi Admn. Flats,Timarpur,
Delhi - 110054
... Petitioner
(By Advocate : Mr. Harish Kumar Karwal )
Versus
1. Shri Dharmendra
The Chief Secretary, GNCTD
5th Level, A Wing
Delhi Secretariat
IP Estate, New Delhi- 110002
2. Dr. Rajesh Kumar
The Director General
Directorate General of Health Services
F-17, Karkardooma
New Delhi - 110032
3. Dr. S.K. Nayak
Addl. Director (In-charge DGEHS)
Directorate General of Health Services
F-17, Karkardooma
2
CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024
Item No.23(i)/C-6
New Delhi - 110032
4. Dr. Megh Nath Singh instead of Dr. Sunita Meena
Medical Superintendent,
Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital
5, Rajpur Road, Delhi - 110054
5. Dr. Sarita Kumari
Deputy Medical Supdt. (In-Charge DGEHS)
Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital
5, Rajpur Road, Delhi - 110054
6. Dr. S.B. Deepak Kumar
Secretary (H& FW)
Health & Family Welfare Department
GNCT of Delhi
9th Level, A Wing, Delhi Secretariat
IP Extension, New Delhi - 110002
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Anand)
O R D E R (ORAL)
As Per: Hon'ble Ajay Pratap Singh, Member Judicial: CP No. 152/2025
The applicant has filed the present Civil Contempt Petition invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the respondents and punish them for contempt of court and respondents be directed to pay the cost of the litigation.3 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024
Item No.23(i)/C-6 FACTS IN BRIEF
2. The briefly stated facts as adumbraded by the applicant in the Contempt Petition that applicant filed OA No. 1309/2024 and this Tribunal vide Order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure CP-1) disposed of the said OA with directions and observations but respondents not complied with the directions of the Tribunal.
3. Per-contra, the respondents have filed compliance affidavit stating that the respondents have fully complied with order dated 19.12.2024 in question and High Power Committee (for short, HPC) thoroughly examined the case of the applicant, reviewing all documents and issued speaking order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure CA-1) and for a little delay, the respondents tendered sincere apology for unconditional delay without any intention.
4. Objections on behalf of the applicant to compliance affidavit has been filed by the applicant stating that the applicant is a serving high support need permanent disabled Delhi Government employee and due for superannuation on 31.08.2026 and covered and protected under RPWD Act, 2016. The legitimate disability rights of high support need permanent disabled applicant under RPWD Act, 2016 are mandatory in nature. So also made 4 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 averments relating to health conditions of the applicant, the applicant has been declared disabled under ordinary PH category and not under PH-HSN and Order dated 19.12.2024 has not been complied.
5. Applicant also averred in the objections that Respondent No. 4 neither put-up concrete proposal for disability consideration nor shared with the applicant. So also in detail stated preliminary objections, citations contesting on merits.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the respondents did not comply with the order dated 19.12.2024 as there was no intimation to the applicant regarding the constitution of the HPC. Hence, no representation could be made to the HPC and now he does not wish to file any comprehensive representation pursuant to direction in order in question.
7. Learned counsel for respondents vociferously canvassed that this Tribunal vide order dated 19.12.2024 in paragraph 52 disposed of with certain directions and same has been complied in letter and spirit and applicant 5 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 has stated at the Bar that he does not want to file any representation at this stage.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings available on record.
9. The short issue that arises for our consideration is - ―whether there is willful disobedience of Order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024, on the part of the respondents to consider grievance of the applicant and consider and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order?‖
10. Heard with consent.
11. This Tribunal in OA No. 1309/2024, Suresh Kumar Rajput versus GNCT of Delhi and Others vide Order dated 19.12.2024, passed the following directions:-
―52. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, this OA is disposed of with the following directions:-
i) The Competent Authority in Government of NCT of Delhi is directed to constitute a High Powered Committee as expeditiously as possible within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order in accordance with O.M. dated 22.05.2018.
(ii) The applicant is directed to make a comprehensive representation within a period of two weeks containing all the reliefs claimed in the OA.
iii) The High Powered Committee shall consider the claim of the applicant keeping in mind his "disability status" as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four 6 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 weeks from the date of receipt of the comprehensive representation of the applicant without being influenced by the earlier orders dated 30.06.2021, 15.11.2021 and 04.05.2023.
iv) The High Powered Committee constituted for grievance redressal of the applicant shall make specific recommendations which the Competent Authority amongst the respondents shall consider and take an appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order and shall take steps for disposal of the claims of the applicant within three weeks from the date of receipt of recommendations of the High Powered Committee under intimation to the applicant. The impugned orders will be subject to final outcome of the report of the High Powered Committee.
v) Applicant will be at liberty to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law for his surviving grievances, if any.
vi) Resultantly, Original Application stands disposed of to the extent of above directions and observations. vii) However, there shall be no order as to costs.
viii) As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
ix) The Order be uploaded on the website and Registry is directed to expedite issuance of certified copy.‖ (emphasis supplied)
12. Respondents have filed compliance affidavit dated 22.04.2025 and stated that order dated 19.12.2024 of this Tribunal has been complied with. The Department constituted HPC and HPC thoroughly examined the case of the applicant, reviewing all documents and issued compliance speaking order dated 16.04.2025 and tendered unconditional apology for unintentional delay.
13. For proper appreciation, compliance order dated 16.04.2024 issued with the approval of DGHS is reproduced as under:-
7CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024
Item No.23(i)/C-6 ―In compliance of Hon'ble CAT order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 titled Suresh Kumar Rajput Vs GNCTD & Ors a High Powered Committee (HPC) has been constituted by the H&FW Department, GNCTD wide Office Memorandum dated 18.03.2025 consisting of following members:-
1. Director General of Health Services, GNCTD
2. Principal, University College of Medical Science, Shahdara
3. Dean. Maulana Azad Medical College, BSZ Marg, New Delhi
4. Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary handling DGEHS matters in the Health & Family Welfare Department, GNCTD It has been further added in the above mentioned OM that the Committee Members may co-opt two other members from Rehabilitation & Social Welfare Department.
A meeting of the High Powered Committee (HPC) was held on 08th April 2025 at 11:00 AM in the Conference Hall of the Director, DHS, at 1st Floor, DGHS (HQ), F-17, Karkardooma, Delhi-110032. The meeting aimed to evaluate the medical case of Sh. Suresh Kumar Rajput under Special Circumstances, as per the Hon'ble CAT Order dated 19th December 2024 in OA No. 1309/2024, and in accordance with the provisions outlined in the CGHS OM dated 22nd May 2018.
List of Attendees-
1. Dr. Rajesh Kumar, DGHS - Chairman
2. Dr. Dheeraj Shah, Principal, UCMS- Member
3. Sh. Ram Krishna, AD (Planning), MAMC for Dr. Poonam Narang, Dean, MAMC - Member
4. Dr. Sarita Kumari, CMO (SAG) & (I/c DGEHS, AAAGH) - Member Secretary (with the request to place all the relevant records/documents related to medical claim of Sh. Suresh Kr. Rajput before the committee members).
5. Sh. J.B. Kapil, Dy. Secretary (DGHS), H&FW- Member
6. Sh. Rukhsar Ahmad Khan, Superintendent, Social Welfare Department, GNCTD- Member The High Powered Committee (HPC) thoroughly examined the case of Sh. Suresh Kumar Rajput, reviewing all documents presented by the In-charge, Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme (DGEHS), Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital. Upon careful deliberation, the Committee concluded that the request for reimbursement of a Special Nurse at Rs. 60,000/- per month could not be approved. This decision was based on 8 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 the fact that there are no provisions under the DGEIIS/CGHS guidelines for providing reimbursement for a Special Nurse at home.
Further, the Committee reviewed the findings of the Medical Committee formed by Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER), Delhi which had examined the patient on 25th November 2022 at 02:00 PM in Room No. 225, D-Block, GIPMER, Delhi. The Medical Committee concluded:- ―The patient, Sh. Suresh Kumar Rajput does not require hospitalization or active nuerological intervention at present. However, the patient requires assistance with daily living activities, including maintaining hygience and care for the Supra Public Catheter (SPC).
Additionally, the In-charge, DGEIS, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital informed the Committee that, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, dated 08th August 2022, a separate room with an attached toilet, washroom, and air conditioner had been arranged at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for the beneficiary. However, the beneficiary did not report for admission stating that the lack of Neuro-related facilities at the hospital. In this regard, it has already been established by the Medical Board of GIPMER that the patient. Sh. Suresh Kumar Rajput, does not require active neurological intervention at present.
In view of the above, the HPC recommended that the demand for a Special Nurse at Rs.60,000. per month under Special Circumstances may not be considered. Consequently, the Committe approved reimbursement as per the provisions of the CGHS OM dated 01.06.2011 as is being given by the Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital for a Certified Care Giver, with an allowance of Rs. 150/- or Rs. 3,000/- per month for long-term care, whichever is less.
This issues with prior approval of the DGHS.
[Emphasis supplied]‖
14. The compliance order dated 16.04.2025 passed in light of Order in question, is clear as noon day that a HPC was constituted on 18.03.2025 and held meeting on 08.04.2025 and evaluated the medical case of applicant in accordance with CGHS OM dated 22.05.2018. 9 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6
15. The HPC reviewed all documents presented by In- charge, DGHS, Aruna Asaf Ali, Government Hospital, Applicant is Section Officer, Aruna Asaf Ali, Government Hospital, Delhi. So also HPC also reviewed findings of the Medical Committee formed by Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of P.G. Medical Education and Research, Delhi, which had examined the applicant.
16. The Committee also considered that as per the directions of the Court of State Commissioner for persons with Disabilities, GNCTD dated 08.08.2022, a separate room with AC etc. arranged at Aruna Asaf Ali, Government Hospital but applicant did not report due to lack of facilities.
17. The HPC recommended and approved reimbursement as per provisions of CGHS OM dated 06.01.2011 as being given by Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital for a certified caregiver with an allowance of Rs. 150/- or Rs. 3,000/- per month for long term care, whichever is less.
18. Shri Harish Kumar Karwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant much emphasized that the HPC was constituted by Health and Family Welfare Department, GNCTD vide OM dated 18.03.2025 and HPC held meeting on 08.04.2025 but the applicant was neither informed 10 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 about constitution of HPC nor applicant was invited, hence no representation as directed in sub-paragraph (ii) of Paragraph 52 of Order dated 19.12.2024 could be made. So also Mr. Karwal, submitted that respondents not acted as per RPWD Act,2016 and applicant is a disabled person with 81% permanent disability and matter deserved to be heard on merits.
19. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. The averments made in para 3 of the Contempt Petition, the applicant stated on affidavit that afterwards and in aftermath of the said order of this Tribunal to harm and harass the applicant, he has been asked for certain details of medical bills.
20. The Medical Superintendent, AAA Government Hospital - Respondent No. 4 has issued communication dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure CP-2) to constitute HPC in time bound manner and also informed to the daughter of the applicant namely Ms. Himani Rajput. Thus, it is matter of record and applicant himself placed on record communication dated 09.01.2025, received by him regarding constitution of the HPC in time bound manner in Court matters. We are of the considered opinion that contention of the applicant so far that no information given 11 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 to constitute HPC is contrary and contradictory to own pleadings and document dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure CP-2) and same is afterthought and devoid of any merit.
21. The another aspect of the matter, that respondents sent letter dated 01.02.2025 (Annexure CP-2) filed at Page No. 68 of Contempt Petition) and requested, daughter of applicant stating that medical bills of the applicant, Section Officer has been received in the Office for reimbursement and to process the reimbursement claim documents, i.e., detailed, itemwise bills alongwith a comprehensive treatment summary etc. is required at earliest.
22. The Communication dated 09.01.2025 and 01.02.2025 (Annexure CP-2) are clear as noon day that the applicant was well aware about constitution of HPC and submitted medical bills for reimbursement.
23. The applicant has chosen not to file a comprehensive representation as directed in sub-para (ii) of paragraph 52 vide Order dated 19.12.2024 and in the open court today, at the Bar, applicant was asked to file a comprehensive representation but counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that he does not wish to file any comprehensive representation pursuant to Order in question. 12 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 RULE OF LAW
24. In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties, we deem it proper to refer to relevant provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (in short, "The Act, 1971" )and refer the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (A) The disobedience of the orders of the Court in order to constitute contempt must be willful. The statutory definition in Section 2 (b) of The Act, 1971, the essential feature in order to constitute contempt, the disobedience must be willful. The definition of civil-contempt envisaged in sec 2 (b) of The Act, 1971 reads as:
―2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) ................................................................
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;"
[emphasis supplied]
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in three Judge Bench decision in the case of J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 291. Their Lordships held that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the 13 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The Order may not be in conformity with the directions but that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review but that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order and in Contempt Petition to consider the matter on merits, not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act, 1971.
26. In the case of Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases
261. Their Lordships held as under:
"5. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really a concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union of India1. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher court.14 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024
Item No.23(i)/C-6 The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the State of Bihar on a threeJudge Bench decision in Niaz Mohd. v. State of Haryana2 we find that the same has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the question arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand of the State, the least it could have done was to assail correctness of the judgment before the higher court. The State took diametrically opposite stands before this Court. One was that there was no specific direction to do anything in particular and, second was what was required to be done has been done. If what was to be done has been done, it cannot certainly be said that there was impossibility to carry out the orders. In any event, the High Court has not recorded a finding that the direction given earlier was impossible to be carried out or that the direction given has been complied with.
8. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non- compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction 15 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. It shall deal with the application in its proper perspective in accordance with law afresh. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding acceptability or otherwise of the application for initiation of contempt proceedings."
[emphasis supplied]
27. In the case of Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and Others, (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 98, Their Lordships in paragraph 7 held as under:
―7. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union of India. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher court. The court exercising contempt 16 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside.‖ [emphasis supplied]
28. In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 613: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 70. Their Lordships in paragraph 6 held as under:
―6. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against the rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say 17 CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6 what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible."
[emphasis supplied]
29. We have considered the matter and respondents have considered the claim of the applicant keeping in mind the disability status and Competent Authority on consideration of recommendation of HPC passed order dated 16.04.2025.
The Order dated 19.12.2024 was to consider and take a decision passing a reasoned and speaking order and applicant was given liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law for his surviving grievances.
30. We are of the opinion that once compliance order dated 16.04.2025 has been passed based on direction to consider, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The compliance order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure R/1) may be right or wrong but that would be a fresh cause of action for the applicant/aggrieved party to avail of opportunity accordance with law.
18CP 152/2025 in OA 1309/2024 Item No.23(i)/C-6
31. We cannot consider the action of the respondents to be willful disobedience of Order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024. The Contempt Petition lacks merit and no interference is called.
CONCLUSION
32. For all the reasons and in view of the decision taken by the respondents vide speaking order dated 16.04.2025 and the principles enunciated in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision of three judge bench in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others (supra), we do not find any merit in the present contempt petition, consequently the same is dismissed and notice issued against the respondents are discharged with liberty to the applicants to assail the correctness of the order dated 16.04.2025 in accordance with law.
33. There shall be no order as to costs.
34. The Registry is directed to upload the order on the website.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/akshaya/