Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ, Tejas Karia, J
KUSUM LATA MALIK – Appellant
Versus
KIRORI MAL COLLEGE AND ORS – Respondent
LPA-232/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. K. Rungta, Prashant Singh
For the Respondents: Monika Arora, Subhrodeep Saha, Prabhat Kumar, Anamika Thakur, Abhinav Verma, Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Aishwarya Malhotra, Tripta Sharma, Anshuman Sharma, Sidhant Thakur, Kartikey Kumar

A contempt court cannot pass orders or directions touching upon the merits of the respective claims of the parties; it can only enforce compliance of existing directions. (Midnapore People’s Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda)

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Scope of contempt jurisdiction - Impermissible for contempt court to pass any order or direction touching upon the merits of the respective claims of the parties - Midnapore People's Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399, followed. (Para 19)

(B) Service Law - Promotion - Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) - Notional seniority - Where an employee has been directly recruited to a higher post, a prior claim for promotion under CAS to that same post becomes irrelevant - No violation of original order if the employee has already received all other consequential benefits as directed. (Paras 17-18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant had been granted seniority w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and other monetary benefits pursuant to a Division Bench order dated 10.01.2020. She filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance regarding her promotion to the post of Reader (under CAS) w.e.f. 01.01.2007. However, the appellant had been directly recruited as Associate Professor (equivalent to Reader) on 12.02.2010 and later promoted to Professor and Senior Professor. An earlier application seeking clarification on this promotion claim was dismissed by the Division Bench on 10.10.2022. The contempt judge initially directed formation of a Selection Committee but later recalled that order and dismissed the contempt petition as satisfied. The appellant appealed.

Findings of Court:
The contempt petition was rightly dismissed. The appellant had received all benefits directed by the original orders. Her claim for promotion to Reader w.e.f. 2007 lost relevance once she was directly recruited to the equivalent post in 2010. The contempt court could not issue a direction that effectively adjudicated a substantive claim not granted in the original order, as it would exceed the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant’s claim for promotion to Reader under CAS from 01.01.2007 was part of the original order, and whether the contempt court could direct the formation of a Selection Committee for that purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: The contempt court cannot pass orders or directions touching upon the merits of the claims of the parties; it can only enforce compliance of existing directions. Where an employee has accepted direct recruitment to a higher post, a promotion claim to that same post under an earlier scheme cannot be enforced in contempt. Result : Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (Para 20)

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)

1. This intra-Court appeal has been instituted seeking exception to an order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (C) No. 308/2021, whereby the earlier order passed by the learned

Contempt Judge on 18.12.2024 has been recalled and set aside and the contempt petition has been dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on this appeal.

3. The appellant had instituted Writ Petition (C) No.2496/2008, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by means of the order dated 19.01.2018. The operative portion of the said order as contained in paragraph 10 is extracted herein below:-

“10. Consequentially, a mandamus is issued to respondent- College to give the slot of visually handicapped in the year 1998 in the “100 Point Roster” (Annexure R-1) to petitioner as her entitlement to 3% reservation has to essentially relate back to the first available vacancy, which was infact existing in the year 1997. Since petitioner has been erroneously appointed on part- time basis on post of Hindi Lecturer in the year 1997 whereas she should have been appointed against a regular vacancy of Hindi Lecturer, therefore, the relief granted to petitioner is confined to the prayer made in this petition i.e. the seniority of petitioner has to relate back to the year 1998 and not to the year 2001, as has been already granted by respondent-College. All consequential benefits accruing upon grant of 3% reservation to petitioner w.e.f. the year 1998 shall follow. However, it is clarified that the monetary benefits as a consequence of this decision will relate back to the year 1998 and not to three years prior to filing of this writ petition. Such a clarification is made for the reason that when petitioner’s earlier writ petition was disposed of vide order of 22nd November, 2007, liberty was granted to petitioner to claim seniority etc. and all consequential benefits from the year 1998. Since petitioner had filed the earlier writ petition in the year 2001, therefore, all consequential monetary benefits would relate back to period of three years prior to filing of W.P. (C) 1784/2001.”

4. The Respondent No.1, however, instituted the proceedings of LPA 206/2018, which too was disposed of by means of the order dated 10.01.2020, whereby the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.01.2018 were modified by observing that though permanent appointment of the appellant on the post of Lecturer in Hindi at Kirori Mal College would notionally relate back to the year 1998 and her pay would accordingly be fixed on notional basis from 1998, however she would be entitled to actual payment of arrears from 16.04.2001. The Division Bench vide the said order dated 10.01.2020 also directed that the appellant would be deemed to have been appointed on a permanent post of Lecturer in Hindi w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and on the said basis her seniority would also be reckoned and her notional pay would be fixed for the purpose of computation of arrears of pay that she may be entitled to from 16.04.2001 onwards. The College was also directed to ensure that the appellant was paid the arrears of pay within eight weeks. The operative portion of the Division Bench order dated 10.01.2020 is embodied in paragraph 13, which reads as under:-

“13. We, therefore, modify the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the extent that though her permanent appointment would notionally relate back to the year 1998, and her pay would accordingly be fixed on a notional basis from 1998, she would be entitled to actual payment of arrears from 16.04.2001. We also find that the learned Single Judge has not fixed a specific date in the year 1998 from which the Respondent would count her seniority as a permanent Hindi Lecturer. Considering the fact that the Respondent was appointed as a part-time Hindi Lecturer in 1997, we direct that she would be deemed to be appointed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIDevendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ, Tejas Karia, JKUSUM LATA MALIK – AppellantVersusKIRORI MAL COLLEGE AND ORS – RespondentLPA-232/2025

A contempt court cannot pass orders or directions touching upon the merits of the respective claims of the parties; it can only enforce compliance of existing directions. (Midnapore People’s Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda)

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ, Tejas Karia, J
KUSUM LATA MALIK – Appellant
Versus
KIRORI MAL COLLEGE AND ORS – Respondent
LPA-232/2025