Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 JEET KUMAR SOHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Saubhagya Chauriha and Mr. Karan Deep Singh, Advs.
HEAD QUARTERS .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The present contempt petition came to be disposed of vide judgment / order dated 22.11.2024 passed in the present proceedings. The same reads as under: CM APPL.15492/2025 “CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 & CM APPL. 68331/2024 (filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC
1. The present application has been moved with mere request that the matter be taken up on the Top of the Board on the date fixed i.e. 27.11.2024. )
2. Learned counsel for the respondent is also present today.
3. This Court has seen order dated 13.09.2022, passed by learned Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 3118/2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed. Para Nos.10, 11 and 12 of above said order read as under:-
10. In the light of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner on the upgraded post of UDC w.e.f. 02.01.2001 is clearly unsustainable and the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
11. The respondents are directed to grant the promotion to the petitioner to the upgraded post of UDC in terms of this Court's order in W.P. (C) 5686/1998 w.e.f. 02.01.2001, i.e., at par with Sh. Krishan Panwar. The petitioner will also be entitled to all consequential benefits as has been granted to other similarly placed employees.
12. It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from taking into consideration subsequent penalties imposed on the petitioner for any purpose, including any upgradation, for which he becomes eligible after 08.08.2002.”
3. Admittedly, the petitioner has already been upgraded to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with effect from 02.01.2001.
4. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that certain subsequent upgradation and all the consequential benefits have yet not been granted, to which he is entitled to in terms of the above said order.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent has filed a compliance affidavit and submits that the order has been duly complied with.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that “response to the compliance affidavit” filed by the respondent, be treated as a representation and the respondent be directed to consider the same in a time-bound manner. He also states that if the outcome remains the same, he may be permitted to revive the present contempt petition.
7. This Court has gone through the response filed by the petitioner to the compliance affidavit of the respondent.
8. Such response affidavit is dated 16.01.2024.
9. Keeping in mind the overall fact and circumstances of the case and the abovesaid submission made by Sh. Rajat Aneja, learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the above said “response affidavit dated 16.01.2024” of the petitioner is treated as representation and the respondents are directed to consider the same and dispose the same of in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from today.
10. The petitioner, if still feels aggrieved by the outcome of the above said representation, shall be at liberty to revive the present petition.
11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
12. The next date of 27.11.2024 is cancelled.”
2. The representation of the petitioner came to be decided vide office order dated 15.01.2025. The same reads as under:
3. The petitioner is dissatisfied with above, and raises a grievance that the aforesaid order does not effectively consider the representation of the petitioner. Consequently, the present application came to be filed for restoration of CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023.
4. Vide order dated 16.12.2025 passed in the present proceedings, the respondent was directed to file a status report. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it has been stated as under:
10. That the above-mentioned table makes it evidently clear that the modified penalties as awarded by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.05.2016 has been duly considered by the Respondent by disposing of the representation as well as during compliance of the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Court in WPC 3118/2019.
11. That it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble High Court by way of order dated 13.09.2022 in no way precluded the Answering Respondent from taking into account the subsequent penalties imposed on the Petitioner for any purpose, including any upgradation for which he becomes eligible, after 08.08.2002. As per the Currency of Penalties enumerated above the last currency of penalty imposed upon the Petitioner ended on 30.06.2016, and that is why the Selection Committee by way of Minutes of Meeting dated 18.10.2023 rightly granted promotion to the Petitioner to the post Senior Judicial Assistant w.e.f. 01.07.2016.”
5. The petitioner submits that in effect, he has been deprived of the consequential reliefs to which he is entitled in terms of the judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C) 3118/2019. The operative portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow: “11. The respondents are directed to grant the promotion to the petitioner to the upgraded post of UDC in terms of this Court's order in W.P. (C) 568611998 w.e.f. 02.01.2001, i.e., at par with Sh. Krishan Panwar. The petitioner will also be entitled to all consequential benefits as has been granted to other similarly placed employees.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC/Judicial Assistant w.e.f. 02.01.2001. In terms of the extant service rules, the petitioner became entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Judicial Assistant (SJA) upon completion of 10 years, i.e., w.e.f. 02.01.2011. However, the grant of such consequential promotion was impeded on account of certain penalties imposed upon the petitioner in various departmental enquiries.
7. Essentially, it is the case of the petitioner that all the penalties on the basis of which the consequential benefit of promotion to the post of SJA had been denied stood exhausted as of 24.12.2013. It is, therefore contended that the petitioner became entitled to promotion to the post of SJA w.e.f. 24.12.2013.
8. On the contrary, from the aforesaid table filed by the respondent along with its affidavit, it is the respondent’s stand that the penalties continued to operate against the petitioner till 30.06.2016. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner could be considered for promotion to the post of SJA only w.e.f. 01.07.2016.
9. Upon a careful perusal of the record, particularly the order dated 12.05.2016 passed in the service appeals filed by the petitioner, this Court finds merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The service appeals consider all the penalties imposed upon the petitioner, including those referred to at serial nos. 2 and 3 of the table set out in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the respondent pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2025.
10. Vide order dated 12.05.2016, the service appeals were disposed of by inflicting the following revised penalty upon the petitioner:
11. Thus, the only consequence that ensued upon the petitioner in terms of the concerned departmental enquiries was the withholding of increments for the period specified in paragraph 21 of the order dated 12.05.2016, as reproduced hereinabove.
12. It is apparent that the maximum conjoint penalty to be suffered by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 12.05.2016 had already been undergone even prior to 24.12.2013, i.e., the date on which the last penalty order came to be passed against him. Consequently, there remains no impediment to considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of SJA w.e.f. 24.12.2013.
13. The legal position is well settled that in a contempt petition, it is incumbent upon the Court to pass such consequential orders as may be necessary to nullify the effect of any disobedience of the directions issued by it. This position has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including Anil Kumar Shahi v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav, (2008) 14 SCC 115. The relevant observations therein are as under:
14. Consequently, the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of SJA w.e.f. 24.12.2013.
15. The respondent shall also compute and grant all further consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled in accordance with the above directions. Needless to say, grant of further consequential promotion to the petitioner shall be subject to completion of necessary procedural formalities, as applicable.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to take any action against the respondent for committing any wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, subject to the aforesaid directions being complied with.
17. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J APRIL 16, 2026