A newly imposed typing test cannot alter protected service conditions after a contractor change.

The petitioners, who were engaged as Data Entry Operators, instituted contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful non-compliance with judicial directions concerning their continued engagement and service conditions.

In the proceedings leading to the order dated 7 October 2021, the Court had directed that the petitioners’ salaries and statutory dues be released and that, notwithstanding a change of contractor, they should continue working without alteration of their service conditions, except in accordance with law.

The MCD subsequently required the petitioners to undergo a typing test, relying on an alleged pre-existing eligibility condition requiring a minimum typing speed of 30 words per minute.

The petitioners contended that no such test had previously been insisted upon during their long period of engagement and that the test was conducted for the first time in April 2024.

The MCD relied on a Compliance Affidavit dated 9 March 2026 and asserted that the Court’s directions had been complied with.

Whether requiring the petitioners to undergo a typing test as a condition for their continued engagement amounted to alteration of their service conditions in breach of the order dated 7 October 2021?

Whether the respondents’ conduct constituted non-compliance or breach of the directions issued by the Court, warranting relief in contempt proceedings?

Whether the respondents had substantiated their assertion that the typing test was an existing and previously enforced eligibility requirement?

The Court exercised its contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which empower the High Court to inquire into and address wilful disobedience of its orders.

The Court applied the binding direction in the order dated 7 October 2021 that, despite a change of contractor, the petitioners’ service conditions were not to be changed, and that they could not be terminated or restrained from working except in accordance with law.

The Court also referred to Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which restricts alteration of service conditions during the pendency of industrial proceedings.

The applicable principle was that a new requirement imposed as a condition for continuation in service, when not previously enforced and inconsistent with an operative judicial direction protecting existing service conditions, cannot be introduced unilaterally.

The Court found that the MCD’s Compliance Affidavit established only that a typing test had been conducted in April 2024; it did not contain material proving that the test had been required or conducted at any earlier time.

Accordingly, the respondents failed to substantiate their claim that the typing test was merely an existing eligibility requirement applied whenever the contractor changed.

Since the test was introduced as a condition for the petitioners’ continued service after they had worked for many years without being subjected to it, the Court treated it as a fresh condition of service.

This directly conflicted with the earlier order requiring that the petitioners’ service conditions remain unchanged notwithstanding a change of contractor.

The Court therefore concluded that the respondents had not complied with the order “in letter and spirit” and had breached the directions issued by the Court.

The Court held that the respondents had breached the directions contained in the order dated 7 October 2021 by imposing the typing-test requirement as a new condition for continuation in service.

The MCD was directed to take the six petitioners back into service within four weeks.

The petitioners were directed to report to the Director (IT), MCD, within one week, and the process of their re-engagement or reinstatement was to be completed within the stipulated four-week period.

In case of non-compliance, the Commissioner, MCD, was required to file an affidavit explaining the reasons.

The contempt petitions and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.