Harminder Kaur Kwatra vs Manjit Singh Gk & Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 02.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011825462016
+ CONT.CAS(C) 902/2016
HARMINDER KAUR KWATRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi & Ms.
Shivangi Dubey, Advocates.
versus

MANJIT SINGH GK & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Latika Choudhry,
Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
CM APPL. 29834/2024 (For Directions)
1. The present Application has been preferred by the Legal
Representatives of the Original Petitioner, under Section 151 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a) Direct the Directorate of Education (DOE) to revisit the
refixation of pay and computation of the arrears erroneously
done on PRT pay scale instead of entitled pay scale of
Music teacher on the basis of the documents filed and may
further direct the school management to release the
outstanding arrears of the Petitioner with the interest @9%
p.a. forthwith;
(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.”

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants submits
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
16:15:35
CONT.CAS(C) 902/2016 Page 1 of 5

that the present Application has been necessitated on account of an
erroneous assumption on the part of the Respondents that the deceased
Petitioner had been appointed as a Primary Teacher (PRT), whereas,
in fact, her initial appointment was as a Music Teacher.
3. It is further contended that the pay scales applicable to Primary
Teachers and Music Teachers were substantially different.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the retiral and pensionary benefits,
along with the consequential arrears, which the Respondents were
directed to release pursuant to the directions issued by this Court,
ought to have been computed on the basis of the pay scale applicable
to Music Teachers and not on the basis of the pay scale of Primary
Teachers.
4. Per contra , learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents opposes the Application and submits that the reliefs
sought therein are, in effect, an attempt to enlarge the scope of the
proceedings pending before this Court in its contempt jurisdiction. It
is contended that the Applicants are seeking a fresh determination and
consequential re-fixation of the pay scale admissible to the deceased
Petitioner, which exercise falls entirely beyond the permissible ambit
of contempt proceedings.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further submits that the
claim now sought to be agitated was neither raised nor pursued by the
deceased Petitioner during her lifetime and, in fact, travels beyond the
reliefs originally claimed by her. It is contended that the Applicants,
being the LRs of the deceased Petitioner, cannot seek to introduce an
altogether new claim at this belated stage under the guise of seeking
implementation of the judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
16:15:35
CONT.CAS(C) 902/2016 Page 2 of 5

6. This Court has heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties and has perused the material placed on record.
7. At the outset, this Court finds merit in the objection raised by
learned Counsel for the Respondents that the reliefs sought by the
Applicants, in the present Application, travel beyond the scope and
ambit of the contempt proceedings pending before this Court.
8. It is well settled that, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, the
Court is required to confine its scrutiny to the terms and directions
contained in the judgment or order alleged to have been disobeyed and
to examine whether the same have been duly complied with. The
contempt jurisdiction cannot be converted into a forum for reopening
the original lis or for undertaking a fresh adjudication of issues which
do not arise from the directions contained in the judgment. This Court,
while examining compliance with its earlier directions, cannot embark
upon an independent exercise of determining the pay scale that ought
to have been granted to the deceased Petitioner or undertake a fresh
assessment of her entitlement to consequential retiral benefits on that
basis.

9. A perusal of the present Application reveals that the Applicants
are, in substance, seeking to question the very basis on which the
initial pay scale of the deceased Petitioner was determined at the time
of her appointment. The contention sought to be advanced is that,
notwithstanding the pay scale reflected in her original appointment,
she was entitled to be placed in a different pay scale applicable to
Music Teachers. In support of this contention, reliance has also been
placed upon the averments contained in the Response dated
18.01.2024, wherein it has been asserted that, prior to July 1980,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
16:15:35
CONT.CAS(C) 902/2016 Page 3 of 5

Music Teachers, including the deceased Petitioner, were entitled to a
distinct pay scale.
10. This Court further notes that the aforesaid contention has been
sought to be substantiated by placing reliance upon the proposed
Recruitment Rules for the post of Music Teacher, issued on
10.12.2020, which prescribe certain pay scales for the said post.
Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in Hirdesh Jain v.
Delhi Administration , wherein, as per the Applicants, this Court had
observed that the pay scale admissible to Music Teachers ought to be
Rs. 425-640, as opposed to the pay scale in which the deceased
Petitioner was originally appointed.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid
submissions seek adjudication of an entirely distinct controversy
concerning the correctness of the initial fixation of the pay scale of the
deceased Petitioner and her consequential entitlement to a higher pay
scale and retiral benefits. Such an exercise would necessarily require
an independent examination of the applicable service rules, the terms
and conditions of the original appointment, the relevant recruitment
provisions and the judgments sought to be relied upon by the
Applicants. These are matters which cannot be examined or
adjudicated upon in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, particularly
when the same do not form part of the directions whose compliance is
presently under consideration.
12. Needless to observe, if the deceased Petitioner was aggrieved
by the pay scale initially assigned to her or by the manner in which her
pay was fixed during the course of her service, the appropriate
remedy, subject to its maintainability in law, was to assail such
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
16:15:35
CONT.CAS(C) 902/2016 Page 4 of 5

fixation before the competent forum. The contempt proceedings
cannot be employed as a substitute for such substantive proceedings,
nor can the Applicants seek to secure, through the present Application,
a determination of service entitlements which were not the subject
matter of the original adjudication.

13. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the reliefs
sought in the present Application are wholly beyond the scope of the
contempt jurisdiction and cannot be granted in the proceedings at
hand. The Application is, accordingly, misconceived and is hereby
dismissed.

CONT.CAS(C) 902/2016
14. List on 17.12.2026, i.e. the date already fixed.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
NOVEMBER 02, 2026/ sk/va
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
16:15:35
CONT.CAS(C) 902/2016 Page 5 of 5