CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 1 of 19

$~23

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

Date of Decision: 16.04.2026

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023

JEET KUMAR SOHRA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Saubhagya

Chauriha and Mr. Karan Deep Singh,

Advs.

versus

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

HEAD QUARTERS .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, Ms. Tania

Ahlawat, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.

Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)

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

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 2 of 19

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:

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 3 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 4 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 5 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 6 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 7 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 8 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 9 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 10 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 11 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 12 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 13 of 19

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 14 of 19

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:

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 15 of 19

“8. That the contempt petition was listed for hearing before the Hon'ble

Court on 16.12.2025, on which date, the Petitioner submitted that the

order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the Ld. Single Judge disposing of the

service appeal of the Petitioner has not been taken into consideration

by the Respondent while deciding the representation.

9. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner preferred

four service appeals, i.e. Appeal No.25/90, 25/90B, 25/90D and

25/90A. The Appeals were filed against the Memorandums issued to

the Petitioner by the Respondent imposing penalties. The following

table enumerates the appeal number, its corresponding Vigilance

Inquiry Number and the penalty imposed upon the Petitioner.”

10. That the above-mentioned table makes it evidently clear that the

modified penalties as awarded by the Appellate Authority vide order

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 16 of 19

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

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 17 of 19

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:

“21. Taking into consideration the above factors, the penalties imposed

in Appeal No.25/90, 25/90B & 25/92D are modified to the extent that

withholding of increments would be two increments for one year each

and in Appeal No.25/90A, it would be three increments for two years.

Other terms and conditions of the orders are left undisturbed.”

11. Thus, the only consequence that ensued upon the petitioner in terms

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 18 of 19

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:

“50.

It is by now well settled under the Act and under Article 129 of the

Constitution of India that if it is alleged before this Court that a person

has wilfully violated its order it can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act

to enquire whether the allegation is true or not and if found to be true it

can punish the offenders for having committed “civil contempt” and if

need be, can pass consequential orders for enforcement of execution of

the order, as the case may be, for violation of which, the proceeding for

contempt was initiated. In other words, while exercising its power under

the Act, it is not open to the Court to pass an order, which will materially

add to or alter the order for alleged disobedience of which contempt

jurisdiction was invoked. When the Court directs the authority to

consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter

should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority and,

therefore, a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position

cannot constitute contempt of Court. There is no wilful disobedience if

best efforts are made to comply with the order.”

CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 Page 19 of 19

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/ cl