$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 JEET KUMAR SOHRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Saubhagya Chauriha and Mr. Karan Deep Singh, Advs. versus OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HEAD QUARTERS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.

Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral CM APPL.15492/2025

1. The present contempt petition came to be disposed of vide judgment / order dated 22.11.2024 passed in the present proceedings. The same reads as under:

“CONT.CAS(C) 1421/2023 & CM APPL. 68331/2024 (filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC)

1. The present application has been moved with mere request that the matter be taken up on the Top of the Board on the date fixed i.e.

27.11.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent is also present today.

3. This Court has seen order dated 13.09.2022, passed by learned Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 3118/2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed. Para Nos.10, 11 and 12 of above said order read as under:-

10. In the light of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner on the upgraded post of UDC w.e.f. 02.01.2001 is clearly unsustainable and the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

11. The respondents are directed to grant the promotion to the petitioner to the upgraded post of UDC in terms of this Court's order in W.P. (C) 5686/1998 w.e.f. 02.01.2001, i.e., at par with Sh. Krishan Panwar. The petitioner will also be entitled to all consequential benefits as has been granted to other similarly placed employees.

12. It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from taking into consideration subsequent penalties imposed on the petitioner for any purpose, including any upgradation, for which he becomes eligible after 08.08.2002.”

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has already been upgraded to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with effect from 02.01.2001.

4. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that certain subsequent upgradation and all the consequential benefits have yet not been granted, to which he is entitled to in terms of the above said order.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent has filed a compliance affidavit and submits that the order has been duly complied with.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that “response to the compliance affidavit” filed by the respondent, be treated as a representation and the respondent be directed to consider the same in a time-bound manner. He also states that if the outcome remains the same, he may be permitted to revive the present contempt petition.

7. This Court has gone through the response filed by the petitioner to the compliance affidavit of the respondent.

8. Such response affidavit is dated 16.01.2024.

9. Keeping in mind the overall fact and circumstances of the case and the abovesaid submission made by Sh. Rajat Aneja, learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the above said “response affidavit dated 16.01.2024” of the petitioner is treated as representation and the respondents are directed to consider the same and dispose the same of in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from today.

10. The petitioner, if still feels aggrieved by the outcome of the above said representation, shall be at liberty to revive the present petition.

11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

12. The next date of 27.11.2024 is cancelled.”

2. The representation of the petitioner came to be decided vide office order dated 15.01.2025. The same reads as under:

3. The petitioner is dissatisfied with above, and raises a grievance that the aforesaid order does not effectively consider the representation of the petitioner. Consequently, the present applica