Shri Suresh Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 10.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 14.05.2026

+ W.P.(C) 4054/2023

SHRI SURESH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pragnya & Ms. Jhanak
Jadhav, Advs. with Petitioner in
person

versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Mishra, SC for
MCD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated
18.11.2022 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’) passed by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal in C.P. No. 266/2021 in O.A. No.
2978/2019 whereby the learned Tribunal closed the contempt
proceedings and discharged the contemnors.
2. Succinctly stated, the material facts germane to the adjudication
of the present petition are as follows:
2.1. The Petitioner was appointed on the post of vaccinator with the
Respondent in the year 1990. Subsequently, in the year 1999, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 1 of 11

Petitioner was posted as a Vaccination Inspector/Public Health
Inspector. The Post of Chief Public Health Inspector, as claimed by
the Petitioner, lay vacant from the year 2002.
2.2. The Petitioner, after climbing up the list of seniority, made a
representation to the Respondent on 04.07.2007 to take necessary
steps to fill up the three vacant posts of Chief Vaccinating Inspectors
and to consider him for the said post. Thereafter, several
representations were made by the Petitioner to the Respondent in this
regard, and the last representation was made on 04.07.2019. By
representation dated 04.07.2019, the Petitioner sought promotion to
the vacant post of Chief Vaccinating Inspector/Chief Public Health
Inspector given that he was the senior most Vaccinating Inspector.
2.3. However, aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondent, the
Petitioner filed O.A. No. 2978/2019 before the learned Tribunal
seeking a direction to the Respondent to take necessary steps to fill the
post of Chief Vaccinating Inspector which lay vacant and to consider
the Petitioner for the said post. During the course of the hearing, the
Petitioner pleaded that he would be satisfied if time bound directions
were issued to the Respondent to decide the Petitioner’s representation
dated 04.07.2019. The Petitioner was set to superannuate on
29.02.2020. Considering the aforesaid, the learned Tribunal, while
disposing of the original application by the order dated 24.02.2020,
directed the Respondent to decide the Petitioner’s representation dated
04.07.2019 before 29.02.2020 by passing a reasoned and speaking
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 2 of 11

order under advice to the Petitioner. The said order dated 24.02.2020
was not complied with.
2.4. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a contempt petition being
C.P. No. 266/2021 in O.A. No. 2978/2019. During the pendency of
the same, on 16.11.2022, the Respondent passed a speaking order No.
PS/DHO-II/MCD/2022/350 thereby considering the Petitioner’s
representation dated 04.07.2019. The same is as follows:
“While considering the prayer of Sh. Suresh Kumar, the Central
Administrative Tribunal of Delhi, in the matter titled as, Suresh
Kumar Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., in OA No-
2978/2019 has passed the certain direction to the respondents vide
order dated 24.02.2020:-
“For the foregoing reasons, the respondent SDMC
who are present in court, shall bring it to the notice of
the respondent NDMC and in turn the respondent
NDMC are directed to decide the representation dated
04.07.2019 of the applicant before 29.02.2020 by
passing a reasoned and speaking order under advice
to applicant.”
While assailing the relief from the Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Suresh Kumar Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation &
Ors., in OA No- 2978/2019, sought the following relief from
Hon'ble CAT:-
(a) Direct the respondent to take necessary steps to
fill up the post of the CVI/CPHI and the post of
Superintendent which is presently lying vacant for
more than a decade and consider the petitioner for
the said post.
(b) Pass such other or further orders as may be
deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of
the present case.
Accordingly, the representation dated 04.07.2019 of applicant Sh.
Suresh Kumar Ex-PHI has been taken into consideration and it
is stated that the grievance of the applicant will be Plan for DPC
to be held in due course (if found eligible in all respect) as DPC
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 3 of 11

has to be convened considering the eligible PHIs of unified
corporation.
This issue with the prior approval of the competent authority.”
Taking note of the same, the learned Tribunal, by the impugned order,
noted that the order dated 24.02.2020 had been complied with and
closed the contempt proceedings qua the contemnors.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner while conceding that the
present petition is limited to the closure of the contempt proceedings
and that the merits of the original application is beyond the scope of
the present petition submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in
closing the contempt proceedings qua the contemnors. She submitted
that the learned Tribunal while disposing of the original application by
the order dated 24.02.2020 had given a specific direction in
unequivocal terms to decide the representation of the Petitioner before
29.02.2020.
4. She submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take into
account the fact that the Respondent passed the speaking order dated
16.11.2022 only after contempt proceedings were initiated by the
Petitioner. She submitted that the speaking order was passed after a
delay of more than 2 years and 8 months in utter disregard of the order
dated 24.02.2020. She submitted that the Petitioner was set to retire on
29.02.2020, and that the learned Tribunal, being mindful of the same,
had directed the Respondent to decide the representation of the
Petitioner before 29.02.2020.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 4 of 11

5. She submitted that in the present case time was of essence, and
mere compliance that too after a delay of more than two and a half
years cannot be termed as sufficient compliance.
6. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the
present petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. He
submitted that in compliance of the order dated 24.02.2020, the
Respondent already passed a speaking order dated 16.11.2022 thereby
considering the representation of the Petitioner. He submitted that no
substantive relief can be granted to the Petitioner in the present
petition, and the grievance, if any, arising out of the speaking order
dated 16.11.2022 was liable to be challenged in a separate original
application.
7. On the question of contempt, the learned counsel for the
Respondent submitted that no contempt of order dated 24.02.2020 was
committed by the Respondent. He submitted that by passing the
speaking order dated 16.11.2022 thereby considering the
representation of the Petitioner, compliance of the order dated
24.02.2020 had already been carried out.
8. On the specific aspect of delay, the learned counsel for the
Respondent submitted that the Petitioner was set to retire on
29.02.2020, and it was not possible for the Respondent authorities to
conduct a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within such a
short span of time. He further submitted that the process of
constitution of DPC was further hampered due to the unification of all
three Municipal Corporations, that is, SDMC, NDMC, EDMC. He
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 5 of 11

submitted that owing to the same, the Respondent was also required to
issue a fresh seniority list of for the subject post.
9. He submitted that the delay was not wilful and submitted that
the learned Tribunal while closing the contempt petition specifically
observed that the order dated 24.02.2020 was duly complied with. He
consequently submitted that the present petition is liable to be
dismissed. A counter affidavit in this regard has also been appended to
the present petition.
10. After having noted the rival contentions of the parties, and
being cognizant of the fact that no substantive relief can be granted to
the Petitioner in the present petition, it is pertinent to note that the
limited issue that this Court is grappling with strictly pertains to
whether the speaking order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the
Respondent complied with the direction issued by the learned
Tribunal vide order dated 24.02.2020 within the timeframe
contemplated therein. In order to assess the same, this Court deems it
apposite to take note of the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the
learned Tribunal while disposing of O.A. No. 2978/2019. The same is
as follows:
“4.0 Applicant pleads that he will be satisfied at this stage if time
bound directions are issued to the respondent-NDMC to decide his
representation. The applicant further pleaded that he is going to
superannuate on 29.02.2020 and hence there is urgency.
5.0. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent-SDMC who are
present in court, shall bring it to the notice of the respondent-
NDMC and in turn the respondent-NDMC are directed to decide
the representation dated 04.07.2019 of the applicant before
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 6 of 11

29.02.2020 by passing a reasoned and speaking order under
advice to applicant.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. What transpires from a reading of the same is that the learned
Tribunal, in unambiguous terms, had directed the Respondent to
decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 04.07.2019 before
29.02.2020. It is apparent that the said direction was passed keeping in
mind the fact that the Petitioner was set to retire on 29.02.2020. Thus,
the direction was not stipulated to be ornamental or advisory and was
meant to be complied with within the prescribed time period.
12. Admittedly, the Respondent neither challenged the order passed
by the learned Tribunal nor complied with the direction within the
stipulated period. Now, at this juncture, what is also relevant to note is
that the representation made by the Petitioner, pursuant to the
direction of the learned Tribunal, was complied with, by way of the
speaking order dated 16.11.2022, after a lapse of more than 2 years
and 8 months, which was substantially beyond the expiry of time
period fixed by the learned Tribunal.
13. The explanation furnished by the Respondent for the delayed
compliance is that owing to the unification of the MCD, the process of
promotion and the issuance of new seniority list was delayed.
Emphasis has also been laid on the fact that the order was passed on
24.02.2020 and in order to consider the case of the Petitioner, a DPC
was required to be constituted, for which the time span of 5 days as
granted by the learned Tribunal was not sufficient. It has consequently
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 7 of 11

been asserted that the delayed compliance was not wilful so as to
amount to contempt.
14. Be that as it may, the record makes it evident that the directions
issued by the learned Tribunal were not acted upon in a timely manner
by the Respondent, nor was any extension or clarification sought from
learned Tribunal in this regard.
15. Even if this Court were to take the contention raised on behalf
of the Respondent at the highest, it is not the stance of the Respondent
that they were not aware of the order dated 24.02.2020 and the
specific directions encapsulated therein. Even assuming that the DPC
could not have been conducted within a span of 5 days, it is not the
case of the Respondent that they sought any extension from the
learned Tribunal to comply with the order dated 24.02.2020. Infact,
even the speaking order dated 16.11.2022 which was purportedly
passed in compliance of the order dated 24.02.2020, only stated that
the Petitioner’s representation has been taken into consideration and
that the grievance of the Petitioner would be Plan for DPC that was to
be held in due course. The question before this Court is not whether it
was possible for the Respondent to ultimately grant any final relief to
the Petitioner or not, the question is whether it was permissible for the
Respondent to reduce a binding direction to a matter of timing or
convenience at its discretion.
16. As noted above, despite being aware of the order dated
24.02.2020, no action was taken by the Respondent to comply with
the same or even seek an extension expressing their inability, if at all,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 8 of 11

to comply with the order. The eventual decision of the representation
was rendered only after a prolonged period of more than two years
and eight months, that too, in the wake of the contempt proceedings.
The utter disregard in complying with the order passed by the learned
Tribunal cannot be brushed aside as trivial inefficiency. The same, in
the opinion of this Court, betrays a deeper malaise thereby reflecting a
complete dearth of accountability and a disquieting tendency to take
binding directions as non-essential.
17. While this Court records its strong disapproval of the inaction
and lethargic approach of the Respondent in the present matter, where
time was undeniably of essence, it can equally not lose sight of the
practical limitation that, at this stage, no judicial direction can undo
what has already transpired. The clock, once permitted to run
unchecked, cannot be judicially rewound.
18. At the same time, it must also be borne in mind that the present
Petition substantially calls upon this Court to examine the matter
through the lens of a contempt jurisdiction, which, by its very nature,
is directed against a natural person alleged to have wilfully disobeyed
the orders of the Court, or as in the present case, the order of the
learned Tribunal, and not merely against an institution in its abstract
form.
19. In this regard, it may be noted that the present Petition has been
filed against the Respondent Department through its Commissioner,
however, the individual officer allegedly responsible for such
contemptuous conduct remains unidentified and has also not been
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 9 of 11

impleaded. Therefore, the Petition suffers from a foundational defect.
As such, before a finding of contempt is returned, the Court is
expected to specifically identify the alleged contemnor and afford
her/him a meaningful opportunity to show cause against the allegation
of wilful disobedience. In the absence of the same before this Court,
any determination on culpability would neither be consistent with
settled principles governing contempt jurisdiction nor would it satisfy
the requirement of procedural fairness, in particular, the principles of
natural justice.
20. Nevertheless, in the present case, this Court can also not remain
oblivious to the colossal and rather unsatisfactory explanation
provided by the Respondent for the delay in compliance with the
direction issued by the learned Tribunal. The procedural defect in the
Petition does not eclipse the manifest administrative indifference
reflected on record. However, at this belated stage, relegating the
Petitioner to amend the Petition would, in the opinion of this Court,
merely prolong the present dispute, which has already suffered undue
delay.
21. Accordingly, in order to balance procedural propriety with the
demands of substantive justice and to finally lend quietus to the
present controversy, the present Petition is disposed of while directing
the Respondent to pay cost of ₹2,00,000/- to the Petitioner within four
weeks.
22. However, the burden of the lackadaisical attitude of a few
erring officers ought not fall on the public exchequer. Thus, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 10 of 11

Respondent is at liberty to recover the cost amount from the erring
officers.
23. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.


ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
MAY 14, 2026
“SS”

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:14.05.2026
14:44:45
W.P.(C) 4054/2023 Page 11 of 11