Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

Court Holds Government Officials Guilty of Contempt for Willful Disobedience of Promotional Directions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, a court has found government officials guilty of contempt of court for their willful disobedience of promotional directions in a long-standing case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, addressed the petitioner's claim for promotion following his reinstatement after a previous penalty of removal from service was set aside.

The court highlighted that the Division Bench had directed the petitioner's reinstatement from the date of service and granted him the right to be considered for promotion. However, the respondent argued that the petitioner only had the right to be considered, rather than an entitlement to promotion. The petitioner's immediate junior had already been promoted to a higher rank.

The court firmly rejected the respondent's argument and emphasized that the petitioner should not be denied promotions due to the respondent's failings. It held that the petitioner's inability to fulfill the eligibility criteria for promotion was a result of the respondent's acts and omissions. The court stressed the importance of compliance with judgments and cited previous cases supporting the petitioner's claim.

The court concluded that the respondent's order declining further promotions for the petitioner was in violation of the unequivocal directions issued by the Division Bench. The court observed that the respondent had demonstrated a lack of willingness to comply with the judgment and had engaged in a flip-flop approach in their actions.

In the operative part of the judgment, the court held the Inspector General of Police (Pers.) and DIG (Pers), who held office as of [Date], guilty of contempt of court for willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench. The court granted the contemnors a six-week opportunity to issue a fresh order granting promotion to the petitioner to the rank of IG, aligning him with his immediate junior. Failure to comply within the specified time would lead to sentencing.

This landmark judgment serves as a reminder of the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring compliance with its directives. It highlights the court's determination to rectify instances of non-compliance and secure justice for individuals affected by the respondent's actions.

Date of Decision: 02nd June, 2023

PRAKASH KUMAR DIXIT   VS AJAY KUMAR BHALLA & ORS   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Parkash-Vs-Ajay-Delhi-HC-2.pdf"]

Latest Legal News