Sri Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society for AP Legislators Ltd vs. The Union of India

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 1 of 18

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 & CM APPL. 21105/2025

MANISH TIWARI & ORS.

.....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Vijay Mishra, Advocate.

versus

AMIT YADAV, CHAIRPERSON, NDMC & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Nirvikar, ASC for NDMC/R-1.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Tushar Sannu, ASC, Mr. Vikrmaditya

Singh & Mr. Parvin Bansal,Advocates

alongwith Ms. Anju Randhawa, JD/NSES and Mr. Vikash Mathur, AO NSES.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R %

20.08.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Sections 11/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following prayers:- “a) Initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 24.07.2023 of this Hon'ble Court passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) 12030 of 2018. b) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 2 of 18

“6. The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation/application along with the copy of the instant petition including the pleadings of the petition as well as the certified copy of this order before the Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council within two weeks from today and after receiving the detailed representation/application, the Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council is directed to dispose of the detailed representation/application keeping in the mind the contents of the petition as well as of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents after giving personal hearing to the petitioners, if required and pass a detailed and reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks.”

“4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/NDMC submits that the order dated 24th July, 2023 passed by this Court has already been complied with. He submits that a speaking order dated December, 2023 has already been issued, which is on record before this Court. He submits that as per the said speaking order, all matters of compassionate appointment pending in the Navyug School Education Society, which also includes the petitioners herein, will be considered and decided in a maximum time period of two months by following the due procedure. The said speaking order further states that the petitioners will continue to work as contractual employees with the Navyug School Education Society till then. Thus, he submits that there is no disobedience of the order dated 24th July, 2023 passed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that since in the said speaking order, it has been stated that the requisite action with respect to the compassionate appointment of the petitioners shall be taken within a period of two months, the matter may be re-notified at a short date.”

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 3 of 18

direction passed by the Coordinate Bench was to treat the petition of the petitioners as representation and the respondents were directed to pass a detailed and reasoned order with respect thereto.

“xxx xxx xxx 6. The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation/application along with the copy of the instant petition including the pleadings of the petition as well as the certified copy of this order before the Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council within two weeks from today and after receiving the detailed representation/application, the Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council is directed to dispose of the detailed representation/application keeping in the mind the contents of the petition as well as of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents after giving personal hearing to the petitioners, if required and pass a detailed and reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks. xxx xxx xxx”

“xxx xxx xxx 16. After due deliberation and discussion, the BoG has approved that “Compassionate appointment cases of Navyug School Educational Society (NSES) may be considered as per the extant compassionate appointment Policy/instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India.” 17. Accordingly, all the matters of compassionate appointment pending in Navyug School Educational Society (NSES), the cases including those of the petitioners, will be considered and decided in a maximum time period of 2 months by following the due procedure. The Petitioners will continue to work as contractual employees in NSES till then. xxx xxx xxx”

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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 4 of 18

“xxx xxx xxx 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out that the speaking order dated 05th December, 2023 has already been passed in compliance of the order dated 24th July, 2023. He further submits that the process for filling up the posts on compassionate appointments in Navyug Schools has already been initiated.

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 5 of 18

respondents in its true letter and spirit.

“1. Status report has been filed by the respondents. Copy thereof has also been supplied to the petitioners.

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 6 of 18

period of 12 weeks from today, the petitioners may be permitted to revive the present contempt petition.

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 7 of 18

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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 8 of 18

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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 9 of 18

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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 10 of 18

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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 11 of 18

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 12 of 18

In pursuance of the same, an offer of appointment dated 03.07.2025 had been issued to Smt. Kajal, Smt. Asha and Smt. Alka Dabral , which have been placed on record along with the compliance affidavit. 11. Reply to the said compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein it is contended that there have been violations of the directions by the respondents in terms of the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 12030/2018. It was submitted that the directions were given to the respondent to dispose of the detailed representation/application filed by the petitioners regarding the regularization of their service, keeping in mind the contents of the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, expeditiously within 8 weeks from the date of receiving the application/representation. It was submitted that the said time period expired on 07.10.2023, and the said directions were not complied with by the respondents. It is further contended that respondents, in complete disregard of the directions, passed a speaking order dated 05.12.2023, wherein they took a suo moto extension of time for a further period of 2 months from 05.12.2023, which was much after the direction passed by this Court, i.e., period of 8 weeks. It is further submitted that despite further undertakings given before this Court, no decision was taken by the respondents. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that a contrary stand, to their counter affidavit dated 28.02.2019 filed in W.P.(C) 12030/2018, has been taken by the respondent in their compliance affidavit dated 07.07.2025 filed in the present petition. It is submitted that in its counter affidavit dated 28.02.2019 vide paragraph 8, it was stated that the case of the petitioners was being examined in line with the instructions issued by the Government of India on compassionate appointment vide Office 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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 13 of 18

Memorandum F.No.14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013. However, the respondent, while filing the "Affidavit of Compliance" dated 07.07.2025 took a complete U-turn and ignored the earlier Office Memorandum F.No. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated 16.01.2013 and proceeded to consider regularization on compassionate appointment on the basis of a recent Office Memorandum F.No. 14014/1/2022-Estt.(D) dated 02.08.2022. On the basis of the aforesaid, it was contended that it is a settled law that the compassionate appointment policy prevalent at the time of the employee's death is applicable and not the subsequent one. 13. Learned ASG on behalf of the respondent submits that the directions for which the present contempt petition had been filed were complied with, as has been observed by the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 10.05.2024. It was also submitted on behalf of learned ASG that even in the order passed by learned Single Judge on 24.07.2023, the contentions of the petitioners were not pressed by themselves as has been noted in the aforesaid order. It is pointed out that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken by the Screening Committee, then they have alternate remedy with respect to the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. As noted hereinabove, the present petition has been filed for non- compliance with the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 12030/2018. For the sake of completeness, the said order reads as under:-

“1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 14 of 18

“(i) Issue writ/order or direction in the form of mandamus or any other nature by directing all the respondents to pass appropriate regularization orders, of all the Petitioners, from the date of their first appointment, within one month from the date of the order of this Hon'ble Court,

(ii) Issue writ/order or direction in the form of mandamus or any other nature by directing all the respondents to pass appropriate order for appointing all the petitioners, in the highest stage of pay prescribed for the post occupied by them with effect from the date of their first appointment, and also appointing all the petitioners, in the highest stage of pay of Group 'C’ category, according to the qualification held by them, and also grant the annual increments in that grade, for all these intervening years. Consequently, they shall be paid the differential amounts they are entitled towards the total emoluments they can draw (including dearness allowance and all other allowances), on the basis of what was actually paid to them and what they are entitled to each year, including the increase in pay scales based on recommendations of the seventh pay commission and allowances payable under the amended rules;

(iii) Issue writ/order or direction in the form of mandamus or any other nature by directing all the respondents to pass appropriate order so that, while making payments to the all Petitioners in accordance with the relief claimed by them, all the respondents shall ensure that the lump sum payments shall be appropriately spread out, in accordance with provisions of the Income tax Act, to ensure that deductions are spread out, and minimum tax effect is felt by the all the petitioners and all the respondents shall render every assistance with the income tax authorities in this regard.

(iv). Issue writ/order or direction in the form of mandamus or any other nature by directing all the respondents to pass appropriate order so that, all the benefits such as pension, terminal benefits, leave encashment, gratuity, etc shall be given to all the petitioners;

(v) Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) in the favour of 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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 15 of 18

all petitioners, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case and in the interest of justice, equity and fair play;

(vi) Award the cost of this petition to the all the petitioners.”

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 16 of 18

“12. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 24 July, 2023, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, is being complied with, by the respondents in its true letter and spirit.”

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 17 of 18

petition. The submission on behalf of the petitioners with regard to various issues, including the applicability of the policy for regularization on compassionate appointments, cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the present contempt jurisdiction. In the reply filed to the compliance affidavit, the petitioners have also raised issues with regard to the discrimination in the final appointment, vis-à-vis the present petitioners. This issue also cannot be decided in the present jurisdiction. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parhihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 291, wherein in paragraph 6, it has been observed and held as under: - “6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In 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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15

CONT.CAS(C) 114/2024 Page 18 of 18

other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.”

AMIT SHARMA, J AUGUST 20, 2025/sn/dj/ns 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 23/08/2025 at 11:56:15