Inderjeet Singh vs MR RAM NIWAS SHARMA, IAS AND ORS on 3 November 2026

1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking revival of Contempt Petition No. 342 of 2025 and issuance of directions to the respondents for release of actual monetary and retiral benefits in compliance with order dated 11.02.2025 passed in TA No. 6409 of 2021.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the record.

3. Before considering the relief sought in the present application, it would be appropriate to refer to the reliefs claimed by the applicant in the original SWP, which was subsequently renumbered as TA No. 6409 of 2021, wherein following prayers were sought: - “a) allow the present writ petition;

b) quash Communication issued vide No. DSEJ/ Legal/8458-59 dated 02.09.2011 under the signatures of respondent No..2, by the medium of which, after providing factually incorrect information, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to driver (Grade-I) w.e.f. 12.02.1999 after the petitioner completed his five years of service in the pay scale of 950-1500 in terms of SRO 28 of 1996 dated 25.01.1996 was rejected without any cogent reason;

c) quash UPDATED SENIORITY LIST dated 08-07-2010, by the medium of which, after wrongly reckoning the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f. 01- 05-1994 instead of w.e.f. 12-02-1999 the petitioner's name was place below the name of respondent No. 4.

d) command and direct the respondents to reckon the seniority of the petitioner as Driver w.e.f. 12.02.1994 over and above respondent No. 4 in view of the stand taken by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in their inter se Communication dated 14-01-2011, ( Annexure U); dated 17-01-2011 ( Annexure-V); dated 04-03- 2011 ( Annexure-W) and dated 25-03-2011 (Annexure-X) read conjointly ;

e) command and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner substantively to the Driver (grade-I) w.e.f. 12.02.1999, (under SRO 28 of 1996) the date the petitioner had completed is five years of service.

f) ANY other alternate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

4. The aforesaid TA came to be disposed of vide order dated 11.02.2025, whereby this Tribunal issued the following directions: “i. The communication dated 02.09.2011 issued by the respondents, which rejected the petitioner’s claim for promotion and seniority, is quashed. The updated seniority list dated 08.07.2010 is also quashed in so far as it wrongly reckoned the petitioner’s seniority from 01.05.1994 instead of 12.02.1994.

ii. The respondents are directed to reckon the petitioner’s seniority as Driver from 12.02.1994 - the date on which he was originally expected to join - and not from the later date (01.05.1994) when he was allowed to join.

iii. The respondents are further directed to promote the petitioner to Driver (Grade-I) with effect from 12.02.1999, as per the provisions of SRO 28 of 1996. This is the date by which he would have completed his five years of service had he been allowed to join promptly.

iv. The respondents are further directed to complete the whole exercise in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.”

5. Subsequently, the applicant instituted Contempt Petition No. 342 of 2025 alleging non-compliance with the aforesaid directions. The said contempt petition was, however, closed vide order dated 29.05.2026, upon the learned Additional Advocate General submitting that a compliance report had been filed on 18.05.2026 and that the directions issued by the Tribunal stood complied with. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ Today, when the matter was taken up, Sri. Sudesh Magotra, learned Addl. A.G. submitted that compliance report has been filed on 18.05.2026 and the order stands complied with.

2. In view of the compliance report filed by the learned Addl. A.G, nothing survives in this Contempt Petition to be adjudicated. The C.P. is closed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under the law.

3. Notices issued stand discharged.”

6. A perusal of the reliefs claimed in the original SWP, as well as the operative directions issued vide order dated 11.02.2025, makes it abundantly clear that no specific relief seeking release of actual monetary benefits, arrears of salary or consequential retiral benefits with effect from any retrospective date was either claimed by the applicant or granted by this Tribunal while disposing of the TA.

7. The scope of the present contempt proceedings cannot be enlarged to incorporate a substantive relief which was neither the subject matter of the original proceedings nor formed part of the directions issued while disposing of the TA. The proceedings arising out of the original TA, including the contempt proceedings, are essentially confined to ensuring compliance with the directions actually issued by the Tribunal. Such contempt proceedings cannot be converted into an independent adjudication for grant of additional substantive reliefs which were not part of the original adjudication.

8. In view of the above, this Tribunal finds that the applicant cannot, by way of the present Miscellaneous Application, seek additional directions for release of actual monetary and retiral benefits under the garb of revival of the contempt proceedings. No ground is, therefore, made out for revival of the contempt petition or for issuance of the additional directions sought in the present application.

9. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application No. 1441 of 2026 is dismissed, being devoid of merit.

10. Needless to observe that the dismissal of the present application shall not preclude the applicant from availing such appropriate remedy as may be available to him under law before the competent forum, in respect of his claim for actual monetary and consequential retiral benefits. No order as to costs.

Diwakar Singh Member (J) Ram Mohan Johri Member (A) Rajat Pathania ( )