Full Text
Translation output
;
$-24-26 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)46/2017
GOVERNMENT Ol" NCT OF DliLIII & ANR Petitioners rhrough: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Rizwan, Advocate
$-24-26 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)46/2017
GOVERNMENT Ol" NCT OF DliLIII & ANR Petitioners rhrough: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Rizwan, Advocate
VERSUS
^ SWATANTRANAYYAR& ANR Respondents ^ Through: Mr.Saurabh Ahuja,Advocate
WITH
W.P.(C)48/2017
GOVERNMENT 01- NCT OF DEI.1II & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC \ crsLis
PARAMJI:f:T ICAI R DIIILLON & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Ahuja,Advocate
GOVERNMENT 01- NCT OF DEI.1II & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC \ crsLis
PARAMJI:f:T ICAI R DIIILLON & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Ahuja,Advocate
WITH
W.P.(C)49/2017
GOVERNMENT OV NC T 01- DI-;LIII & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC
GOVERNMENT OV NC T 01- DI-;LIII & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC
VERSUS
RA.1 DULARI GUPTA Respondent
Through: Mr.Saurabh Ahuja,Advocate
Through: Mr.Saurabh Ahuja,Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.Jl STICE CHANDER SHEKHAR 2017:DHC:8391-DB
04.01.2017 CM Nos.283/2017.287/2017& 289/2017
Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
WPtCl Nos.46/2017. 48/2017. 49/2017 «& CM Nos.282/2017, 286/2017.288/2017
These writ petitions by the Government ofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi and its functionary,the ChiefSecretary,impugn the common order dated 23.12.2016 passed in CP No.100/233/16.
At the very outset, we record that the petitioners have given-up their challenge to the impugned order, insofar as directions have been issued for compliance ofthe decision dated 19.1.2016. We would record that the order dated 19.1.2016 disposed of OA Nos. 23088-90/2015. This order, in turn, refers to earlier round of litigation, resulting in the order dated 6.8.2010 passed in WP(C)Nos. 10640/2009 and 13238/2009.The respondents herein were thereafter compelled to file two contempt petitions before the High
Court. The first contempt petition was disposed of, recording that the petitioners had issued order dated 23.1.2014. The second contempt petition was disposed ofon 3.5.2015 recording as under:
"In the opinion ofthis Court, with the issuance ofthe order dated
23rdJanuary,2014 by the Lieutenant Governor,Delhi, the limited direction given by the Division Bench vide
HON'BLE MR.Jl STICE CHANDER SHEKHAR 2017:DHC:8391-DB
04.01.2017 CM Nos.283/2017.287/2017& 289/2017
Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
WPtCl Nos.46/2017. 48/2017. 49/2017 «& CM Nos.282/2017, 286/2017.288/2017
These writ petitions by the Government ofNational Capital Territory ofDelhi and its functionary,the ChiefSecretary,impugn the common order dated 23.12.2016 passed in CP No.100/233/16.
At the very outset, we record that the petitioners have given-up their challenge to the impugned order, insofar as directions have been issued for compliance ofthe decision dated 19.1.2016. We would record that the order dated 19.1.2016 disposed of OA Nos. 23088-90/2015. This order, in turn, refers to earlier round of litigation, resulting in the order dated 6.8.2010 passed in WP(C)Nos. 10640/2009 and 13238/2009.The respondents herein were thereafter compelled to file two contempt petitions before the High
Court. The first contempt petition was disposed of, recording that the petitioners had issued order dated 23.1.2014. The second contempt petition was disposed ofon 3.5.2015 recording as under:
"In the opinion ofthis Court, with the issuance ofthe order dated
23rdJanuary,2014 by the Lieutenant Governor,Delhi, the limited direction given by the Division Bench vide
ORDER
and order dated 06th August, 2010 stands complied with. Infact, the said position had been accepted by the petitioners when they had not pressed their earlier contempt petition being Cont. Cas.(C)
533/2012. Admittedly, the pecuniary benefit has not been given to thepetitionersasconsentofMinistryofHome Affairs, Government of India and DOPT, Government of India, is required. Since neither ofthem are parties to the present contempt petition, this
Court is ofthe view that no 10 OA 3088/2015 with two others further orders can be passed in the present contempt petition.
However, the statement of learned counsel for respondents is accepted that they would pursue the matter with the Ministry of
Home Affairs and DOPT. This Court expects that the Ministry of
Home Affairs and DOPTshallpromptly deal with the requestput forward by the Delhi Government and the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, present contempt petition and pending applicationstand disposed of."
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the Lieutenant Governor ofDelhi, vide order dated
3.1.2017, has granted approval for grant of pay-scales mentioned in the order dated 23.1.2014. The approval order is expected to be received today, and payments would be madetothe respondentsoron or before 31.1.2017. h
It is also submitted that Ms. Puniya Salila Srivastava, Secretary, Department of Training and Technical Education, against whom bailable warrants have been issued, is on child care leave and is presently outside
India. She is to return to India on 27.1.2017. It is stated that she would appear before the Tribunal on any date and time convenient to the Tribunal.
We take on record the statement made, on instructions, by learned counsel for the petitioners and dispose ofthe writ petitions, requesting the
Tribunal to adjourn the hearing fixed on 5.1.2017, to any date in February and on the said date, Ms. Puniya Salila Srivastava will appear before the
Tribunal. The petitioners will also file a compliance report before the
Tribunal on the date fixed in February, 2017. As already noted above, the petitioners have made a statement that the payments would be made to the respondents, in terms ofthe order dated 23.1.2014 on or before 31.1.2017.
We clarify that in view of the said statement, the bailable warrants issued against Ms.Puniya Salila Srivastava need not be executed.
Dasti under the signature ofthe Court Master.
SANJIV KUANNA,J CHANDER SHEKIIAR,J JANUARY 04,2017/tp
533/2012. Admittedly, the pecuniary benefit has not been given to thepetitionersasconsentofMinistryofHome Affairs, Government of India and DOPT, Government of India, is required. Since neither ofthem are parties to the present contempt petition, this
Court is ofthe view that no 10 OA 3088/2015 with two others further orders can be passed in the present contempt petition.
However, the statement of learned counsel for respondents is accepted that they would pursue the matter with the Ministry of
Home Affairs and DOPT. This Court expects that the Ministry of
Home Affairs and DOPTshallpromptly deal with the requestput forward by the Delhi Government and the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, present contempt petition and pending applicationstand disposed of."
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the Lieutenant Governor ofDelhi, vide order dated
3.1.2017, has granted approval for grant of pay-scales mentioned in the order dated 23.1.2014. The approval order is expected to be received today, and payments would be madetothe respondentsoron or before 31.1.2017. h
It is also submitted that Ms. Puniya Salila Srivastava, Secretary, Department of Training and Technical Education, against whom bailable warrants have been issued, is on child care leave and is presently outside
India. She is to return to India on 27.1.2017. It is stated that she would appear before the Tribunal on any date and time convenient to the Tribunal.
We take on record the statement made, on instructions, by learned counsel for the petitioners and dispose ofthe writ petitions, requesting the
Tribunal to adjourn the hearing fixed on 5.1.2017, to any date in February and on the said date, Ms. Puniya Salila Srivastava will appear before the
Tribunal. The petitioners will also file a compliance report before the
Tribunal on the date fixed in February, 2017. As already noted above, the petitioners have made a statement that the payments would be made to the respondents, in terms ofthe order dated 23.1.2014 on or before 31.1.2017.
We clarify that in view of the said statement, the bailable warrants issued against Ms.Puniya Salila Srivastava need not be executed.
Dasti under the signature ofthe Court Master.
SANJIV KUANNA,J CHANDER SHEKIIAR,J JANUARY 04,2017/tp