Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006 % Date of Decision : 19.5.2009 Sanjeev Kumar Verma …. Petitioner Through Petitioner in person Versus M.M. Kutti & Ors …. Respondents/Alleged Contemnors Through Ms. Usha Saxena, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO V. K. SHALI, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that his counsel is in some personal difficulty. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on the last date of hearing i.e. 1st April, 2009 also the counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that the respondents have committed the contempt by disobeying the orders passed by this Court dated 16th January, 2006. Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006 Page 2 of 4 3. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on 16th January, 2006 this Court had disposed of the writ petitions in case titled Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Anr Vs. MCD & Ors bearing W.P. (C) Nos. 20/2006 and 21/2006 wherein the respondents were directed to fill up two posts of Technical Officer falling to the share of promotional quota. The direction of filling up of these two posts was given on the basis of the statement purported to have been made by one Mr. Tarun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the MCD in the said cases on 16th January, 2006. It was also observed since the respondents had taken a stand that the petitioner was being proceeded in the departmental inquiry, therefore, his case will be kept by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the sealed cover. This entire exercise was to be done by the respondents at the earliest not later than three months from the date of the order i.e. 16th January, 2006. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is as against the direction to fill up two vacancies of the post of Technical Officer, the respondents have filled up only one post of Technical Officer, and therefore, they have willfully disobeyed the orders dated 16th January, 2006. 5. The counter affidavit has been filed by Smt. Renu K. Jagdev, Director (Personnel), MCD wherein she has stated that there are three posts of Technical Officer falling to the share of promotion quota. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that one of the posts is filled up by Mr. Pradeep Kapoor and against the second post, one Mr. Vinod Kumar Vats has a substantive lien though presently he is working as Deputy Director (Technical). This leaves the respondents only with one Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006 Page 3 of 4 post vacant on regular basis and in terms of the directions passed by this Court on 16th January, 2006. Steps have been taken to fill up this one regular vacancy of Technical Officer. So far as the second post against which a substantive lien of Mr. Vinod Kumar Vats who was working as Deputy Director (Technical) is concerned, the said post cannot be filled up on account of the lien of an incumbent named therein. 6. A perusal of the counter affidavit clearly shows that the respondents could have filled up only one post of Technical Officer which was vacant on regular basis. So far as the second post is concerned, though the same is vacant but as another person who is working as Deputy Director (Technical) has a substantive lien against the said post, it cannot be filled up till the time his lien comes to an end. Though the learned counsel for MCD ought to have explained this aspect to the Court at the time when the admission was made that there are two vacancies but merely on account of the fact that there are two vacancies and there is a direction passed by the learned Single Judge on 16th January, 2006 does not mean that under the circumstances where the respondents have given a reasonable explanation of non filling of one vacancy of the Technical Officer this will tantamount to willful or contumacious disobedience of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I feel that though there may be technical disobedience of order passed or the undertaking given to this Court, but the same is not willful or contumacious or done with a view Cont. Cas. (C) No. 728/2006 Page 4 of 4 to lower the majesty of the Court. This is occurring only on account of the fact that the second post is a post against which a person has a substantive lien and till the time of his lien does not come to an end the said second post cannot be filled up. I do not find prima facie any merit in the contempt petition, accordingly, the notice for contempt is discharged and the petition is dismissed. May 19th 2009 V.K. SHALI, J. KP