Facts
The petitioner, an 81-year-old retired Assistant Director (Planning) of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging disobedience of the Tribunal's order dated 18.02.2014
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1In the original order, the Tribunal quashed a 2011 order and directed the respondents to hold a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider the petitioner’s case for promotion to Deputy Director (Planning) for the year 2003-04, applying the law laid down in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India
Source reference: p. 2, para. 9The respondents challenged this in the Delhi High Court (WPC No. 3091/2014), which upheld the Tribunal's decision on 11.02.2025
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 2Following the High Court's order, the respondents conducted a review DPC and found the petitioner "fit" for the post
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3However, via a letter dated 22.09.2025, the respondents declined to grant notional promotion benefits, citing that the petitioner retired on 30.09.2004 and no junior had been promoted based on the original DPC held in 2003
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3The petitioner alleged this denial constituted non-compliance
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the respondents’ act of finding the petitioner fit for promotion but denying notional financial benefits constitutes a contemptuous disobedience of the Tribunal's directions dated 18.02.2014.
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 6-7Law Applied
The court considered the principles governing retrospective promotion and the consideration of ACRs established in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (2009) 16 SCC 146
Source reference: p. 2, para. 9It also referenced the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 15.11.2018, which provides guidelines for the grant of notional promotion and associated benefits
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3Reasoning
The Tribunal examined whether the respondents had fulfilled the specific mandate of the 18.02.2014 order, which was to "hold a review DPC and reconsider [the] applicant’s case"
Source reference: p. 2, para. 9The Tribunal noted that the respondents had indeed convened the review DPC, evaluated the petitioner’s ACRs and vigilance record, and declared her fit for the post
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3The subsequent decision to deny notional benefits was based on the respondents' interpretation of DoP&T guidelines and the fact that no junior officer had been promoted during the relevant period
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3The Tribunal reasoned that since the primary direction to reconsider the petitioner via a review DPC had been executed and the results communicated to her, the respondents had substantially complied with the order
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 6-7The dispute regarding the interpretation of the Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar judgment or the applicability of the DoP&T OM was deemed a fresh cause of action rather than an act of contempt
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Holding
The Tribunal held that the respondents had complied with the order dated 18.02.2014
Consequently, the Contempt Petition was closed, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8However, the Tribunal granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the communication dated 22.09.2025 regarding the denial of notional benefits
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Original Court PDF
M B DhamvsSh. N. Saravana Kumar, Vice Chairman, DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in