Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hem Chander vs Dr. Dinesh Prasad Saklani Director ... on 5 February, 2026
1
Item No. 30 CP No. 962/2024 in
Court No. IV O.A. No. 1315/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
C.P. No. 962/2024
In
O.A. No. 1315/2024
This the 5th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. Hem Chander,
Serving as LDC, Group 'C'
Aged about 33 years
S/o Sh. Tilak Raj,
R/o L-28, Vijay Vihar,
Phase-II, Rohini,
Sector-4,
Delhi - 110085
2. Vineet Kumar,
Serving as LDC, Group 'C'
Aged about 34 years
S/o Sh. Devanand,
R/o RZF-27, Dabri Palam Road,
Vijay Enclave, Delhi - 110045
...Applicants
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Mohit Siwach)
Versus
1. DR. Dinesh Prasad Saklani,
Director
National Council of Educational
Research & Training,
Sri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi - 110016
....Respondent
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Manish Kumar Saran with
SHILPI
GUPTA Mr. Sidhant Sharma and
SHILPI
GUPTA
2026.02.09 Mr. Aditya Mani Saran)
17:28:48
+01'00'
2
Item No. 30 CP No. 962/2024 in
Court No. IV O.A. No. 1315/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to the order passed by this Tribunal on 02.04.2024 in the associated O.A. No. 1315/2024, wherein following directions were issued:-
"4. Keeping in view the limited prayed made by the learned counsel for the applicants, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present OA at the admission stage itself by directing the applicants to make a detailed comprehensive representation, if they so desire, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Thereafter, the Competent Authority amongst the respondents shall dispose of the applicants' representation keeping in view the case law, referred above, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation.
5. It is made clear that while passing the present Order, this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. The OA along with MA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs."
2. Pursuant to which the present Contempt Petition has been filed by the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to the record of proceedings dated 01.09.2025, wherein following observations were made:-
"Learned counsel for the respondents submits that vide the instructions dated 30.03.2010, the instructions of 07.08.1989 had been superseded. However, we are shocked to note that vide the subsequent instructions of 13.08.2020, the earlier instructions of 13.08.2020 have since been revived. What was required was to consider the case of the applicant in view of the DoP&T instructions of 07.08.1989, read with 30.03.2010 and 13.08.2020 and any other subsequent instructions. Clearly, the respondents have failed in their duty to SHILPI consider the matter in a holistic manner. GUPTA SHILPI 2026.02.09 GUPTA 17:28:48 +01'00' 3 Item No. 30 CP No. 962/2024 in Court No. IV O.A. No. 1315/2024 In view of the same, the compliance affidavit and the speaking order passed by the respondents are rejected. However, one liberty is granted to the respondents to re- consider and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in terms of the directions of the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks"
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that subsequent to the above quoted order passed by this Tribunal on 01.09.2025, the matter was reconsidered and a fresh compliance affidavit was filed on 25.11.2025. It is highlighted in the compliance affidavit dated 25.11.2025 that a fresh speaking order has been passed after considering all relevant aspects of the matter in accordance with law. He would submit that there can be no willful defiance or non-compliance of the Tribunal's order. He would submit that, if the applicants are still aggrieved by the decision taken on merits, they may agitate their grievances in accordance with law. If the order has been passed on merits the contempt petition will not lie.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants draws reference to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3626/2012 decided on 10.02.2017 titled as Rakesh Semalty Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein the following observations were made:-
"12. The question, however, still remains whether the respondents can make differentiation in granting pay SHILPI protection to only those who are appointed through GUPTA SHILPI 2026.02.09 interview and not those who are appointed through GUPTA 17:28:48 +01'00' 4 Item No. 30 CP No. 962/2024 in Court No. IV O.A. No. 1315/2024 open competitive examination. In our view, the OM dated 10.07.1998 does not provide sufficient reasons for differential treatment. This also appears discriminatory as the mode of appointment, namely through interview or through open competitive examination, should not be a factor to decide whether the employee would get the benefit of pay protection or not. FR 22 (I) (a) (1) basically says that when an employee gets promoted or appointed from one post to another, he deserves pay protection. The 1989 OM interprets it and states that not only those who get promoted or appointed within the organization but also those who come from outside i.e. PSUs/ Autonomous Bodies etc. should also get this pay protection. We fail to understand how a differential treatment can be given to one class of employees just depending on the mode of appointment.
13. We, therefore, hold the provisions of OM dated 10.07.1998 as against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 and declare it ultra vires. Since this OM is declared ultra vires, the applicant is automatically entitled to pay protection as claimed by him. The OA is, therefore, allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant pay protection in terms of 1989 OM to the applicant, within a period of 90 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."
6. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that a detailed speaking order has already been passed. He would further contend that the present applicants were appointed in the year 2018, whereas the DoP&T Office Memorandum was issued subsequently on 13.08.2020, which cannot be given retrospectively. He further submits that decision in the matter of Rakesh Semalty (supra) was not rendered in the context of O.M. dated 30.03.2010, whereas the same has been duly considered in the present matter.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argues that a holistic view ought to have been taken SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI 2026.02.09 GUPTA 17:28:48 +01'00' 5 Item No. 30 CP No. 962/2024 in Court No. IV O.A. No. 1315/2024 while deciding the matter. He further urges that a legal opinion was given in the favour of the applicants.
8. Upon considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, we find that a speaking order has been passed in terms of the various Office Memorandums applicable and prevailing at the relevant point of time. Merely because a legal opinion was rendered in favour of the applicants ipso facto does not confer an absolute right to agitate and lay claim on the said decision. Moreover, the only direction which was passed by this Tribunal was to pass a speaking order after a giving a detailed comprehensive representation, keeping in view the whole position thereto.
9. In view of the fact that the speaking order has been passed, we are of the considered opinion that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents to not to comply with the order passed by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed and the notices stand discharged.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
SHILPI
Member (A) Member (J)
GUPTA/SG/
SHILPI
2026.02.09
GUPTA
17:28:48
+01'00'