CP No. 941/2025 In OA No. 2313/2019 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI MA. No. 4825/2025 in CP No. 941/2025 In OA No. 2313/2019 This the 9^th Day of December,2025 Hon’ble Mr. R.N.Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Shri. B.Anand, Member (A)

SMT. NISHA W/O LATE SH. VINOD KUMAR T-235A,26-B BALJEET NAGAR, WEST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110008.

……Applicant (By Advocate: None)

Versus

1.SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR, SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GNCTD DELHI SECRETARIAT

9TH LEVEL, A WING, I P ESTATE NEW DELHI-110002.

2. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT DIRECTOR, BHAGWAN MAHAVIR HOSPITAL H-4/5, GURU HARI KISHAN MARG, PITAMPURA, DELHI-110034.

…Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr. Monika Bhargava)

CP No. 941/2025 In OA No. 2313/2019 ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

There is no representation on behalf of the applicant.

2. The present CP has been filed willful defiance of the directions of the Tribunal contained in the order dated 23.09.2022 in the captioned OA.

3. The applicant had filed an accompanying Miscellaneous Application No. 4825/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 754 days in filing of the captioned CP.

4. When the CP and MA both were listed on 11.11.2025, this Tribunal was of the prima facie view that the present CP is barred by limitation.

5. Despite the fact that the applicant had filed the captioned MA seeking condonation of delay, learned counsel for the applicant sought time and requested an adjournment to 17.11.2025. On 17.11.2025, the matter was again adjourned at the request of the learned Government Counsel appearing for the petitioner/applicant. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 26.11.2025, when there was no representation on behalf of either party.

6. The matter was again listed on 08.12.2025, subsequently, however, once more, there was no appearance on behalf of the CP No. 941/2025 In OA No. 2313/2019 petitioner. Accordingly, the matter has now been taken up for consideration.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Yadav, submits that the present contempt petition is not maintainable. He argues that there is no provision under the applicable law providing for condonation of delay in the filing of a contempt petition, and therefore the present CP, being barred by limitation, is liable to be dismissed.

8. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the judgment dated 17.09.2025 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Contempt Case No. Cont. CAS (C) 1414/2025, CM APPL. 59131/2025, CM APPL. 59132/2025 titled Dr. Sunil Kumar V/s Union of India and Ors. wherein the Hon’ble High Court, after considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupati Rao v. M. Lingamaya, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment in the case of Dr. Sunil Kumar (supra) read as follows:-

“14. Once again, admittedly the petitioner never took any steps for initiating proceedings within the prescribed statutory period of one year under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 qua the order dated 08.12.2021. In view thereof, the present petition qua the order dated 08.12.2021 being beyond limitation, is also not maintainable.

15. Be that as it may, this Court cannot undermine the legislative intent in fixing the said prescribed statutory period of limitation of one year in the Contempt Act by the legislature. The same, being mandatory, has a significant relevance. In fact, it is a settled position of law that the Courts ought not to entertain contempt proceedings initiated after expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt Act however, to supplant the aforesaid view, it is felt appropriate to refer to CP No. 941/2025 In OA No. 2313/2019 the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M.

Lingamaiah1 wherein it has been held as under:

"53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 nature, the petitioner cannot choose