Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 LEELA GAUR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Seth, Adv. (through v/c)
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Ms. Priya Singh, GP, Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi and Ms. Rebina Rai, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment/order dated 28.04.2023 passed in LPA NO. 773/2017. The operative directions therein are as under:
2. It transpires that after the aforesaid judgment was passed, an office order dated 24.07.2024 came to be issued. The same reads as under:
3. As recorded in the order dated 11.03.2025, according to the petitioner, there is a discrepancy in the aforesaid order on account of the fact that at the time when she was drawing the earlier pay scale, she was already receiving an increment of Rs.150/-. This is also evident from the figures mentioned under the caption ‘pre-revised basic pay’ in the table reproduced in the office order.
4. Prima facie, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, after revision of the pay scale, the initial pay should have been Rs.5,500/- plus an increment of Rs.175/- making it Rs.5,675/-.
6. The other entries under the caption revised basic pay shall also be required to be revised accordingly.
7. In the circumstances, the Chief Accounts Officer and other senior authorities of Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay National Institute for Persons with Physical Disabilities (Divyangjan) are directed to revisit the office order dated 24.07.2024 after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The respondent shall supply a copy of the petitioner’s service book to the petitioner.
8. The aforesaid aspect, duly highlighted by the petitioner in these proceedings, shall be taken into account and necessary corrective orders shall be issued within a period of eight weeks from today.
9. Necessary consequential financial benefits shall also be disbursed to the petitioner within the said period.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. It is made clear that if the needful is not done within the aforesaid timelines prescribed by this Court, the same shall be construed as wilful disobedience by the Chief Accounts Officer and other senior officials of Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay National Institute for Persons with Physical Disabilities (Divyangjan) entailing action under Section 2(b) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971.
12. In such an eventuality, the petitioner shall be entitled to revive the present proceedings.
SACHIN DATTA, J MAY 14, 2026