Delhi High Court - Orders
Restoration) R.R. Meena vs Sh. Gyanesh Bharti on 14 May, 2025
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 897/2023 CM APPL. 63982/2023(CM For
Restoration)
R.R. MEENA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Mr. O.P. Gaud,
Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj, Mr.
Himanshu Bhardwaj, Mr. Praveen
Kaushik, Ms. Yangtsapila Sangtam,
Advs.
versus
SH. GYANESH BHARTI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni (SC) MCD
along with Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 14.05.2025
1. Counsel for respondent points out that a clarification was sought in W.P.(C) 2574/2020 from the Division Bench of this Court vide CM APPL.63996/2023. Clarification was sought in context of the observations made by the Court with relation to the major penalty to be considered as a minor penalty as regards the petitioner and the direction was given to re- examine the case.
2. The clarification sought by the MCD was allowed by order dated 9 th February 2024, and the Division Bench clarified that the Court had merely recorded the submission of learned counsel for petitioner in the order dated 20th May 2022 and not held a major penalty to be a minor penalty. The 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 30/06/2025 at 02:51:05 Division Bench further stated that it would be open to the competent authority to construe the order passed by the Tribunal in accordance with rules.
3. As per this, counsel for MCD states that it was open to MCD to pass an order and accordingly, they have passed a detailed speaking order on 4 th April 2024 and approved the compulsory retirement of the petitioner as being in accordance with rules and provisions.
4. Counsel for petitioner, however, states that order which has now been passed on 4th April 2024 is yet again the same order which had been passed on 22nd July 2022 and subsequently as well.
5. However, in the opinion of this Court, this contempt petition cannot sustain, considering the clarification given by the Division Bench. By order dated 20th April 2022, there was no fetters placed on the MCD to determine the case of the petitioner in any particular manner. The direction which was given was to 're-examine the case of the petitioner'.
6. The fetter, if any, by the observation of the major penalty vs. minor penalty was subsequently clarified on 9th February 2024.
7. Accordingly, it is up to the petitioner to seek remedy in accordance with law, if he continues to be aggrieved by the order dated 4th April 2024.
8. The petition is disposed of.
9. Liberty is given to petitioner to seek remedy in accordance with law.
10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J MAY 14, 2025/ak 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 30/06/2025 at 02:51:05