$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 % LPA 57/2026 & CM APPL. 7966/2026 SACHIN .....Appellant Through: Ms. Vasudha Saini, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC with Ms.Himani, GP and Ms. Nisha Puri, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 7967/2026 (for exemption

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

LPA 57/2026 & CM APPL. 7966/2026 (for stay

3. This Letters Patent Appeal questions the validity of an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CONT.CAS.(C) 1994/2025 instituted by the appellant, whereby the Contempt Petition has been disposed of by observing that in the facts of the case no willful disobedience is made out.

4. On a query by the Court as to how the instant Letters Patent Appeal shall be maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, 2006 (5) SCC 399, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the instant Letters Patent Appeal will be maintainable in view of observations (IV) and (V) as contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra). In this regard, the submission is that learned Single Judge, while disposing of the Contempt Petition vide impugned order dated 24.12.2025, has made certain observations which touches the merits of the dispute and therefore, the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 will not be maintainable, however, the Letters Patent Appeal will be maintainable as per dictum laid down in Midnapore Peoples’

Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra).

5. It has further been stated on behalf of the appellant that since by the observations made in paragraph 11 of the impugned order, learned Single Judge makes a decision relating to merits of the dispute between the parties and therefore, as per the law laid down Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), intra-court appeal would be maintainable.

6. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit, rendered on 29.07.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8129- 8130/2024. It has been stated that in Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra), after considering the judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that intra-court appeal in the said matter was maintainable for the reason that learned Contempt Judge had given a finding that the respondent was entitled to promotion. Drawing parallel with the facts on which Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra) is based, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Contempt Judge while passing the impugned order, in paragraph 11 has noticed the submission on behalf of the respondent that decision qua the appellant shall be communicated to him once the process is complete which is on its last stage, thereby the learned Contempt Judge has in effect modified the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(C) 10792/2025 filed by the appellant. In this respect, it has been argued that the learned Writ Court, while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 25.08.2025 had noted the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that process of compassionate appointment was under active consideration and that if the appellant is eligible in terms of the policy and can be accommodated in the available vacancies for compassionate appointment, decision to this effect will be communicated to him within four weeks. Further submission is that after noticing the said statement made on behalf of the respondent, the Writ Court directed the respondent to communicate the status of the appellant’s request, both on the question of eligibility and availability of vacancy/wait list. However, the decision to the appointment of the appellant