|
Court finds no contempt in delayed appointment as Joint Secretary, the Delhi High Court held while disposing of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of its earlier directions, even as it issued corrective directions to protect the petitioner's service rights.
Justice Sachin Datta observed that although the respondents had failed to adhere to the timeline fixed in the Court's July 26, 2021 order--requiring appointment within six weeks--they had eventually complied by issuing an appointment letter in November 2023. In view of such subsequent compliance, the Court held that the case did not warrant punitive action for wilful disobedience. However, the Court emphasised that delayed compliance cannot prejudice the petitioner. It noted that official records, including the proposal placed before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), clearly reflected that the petitioner's appointment was intended to take effect from September 21, 2021, on a notional basis, particularly for purposes of seniority and pay fixation. The omission of this aspect in the formal appointment order required judicial correction. During the course of proceedings, the Union of India was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Advocate Ashish K Dixit, along with others, who appeared on behalf of the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice. Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner's appointment be treated as notionally effective from September 21, 2021, even though he assumed charge only in December 2023. It also recorded the petitioner's submission that he would not claim back wages for the intervening period. The case arose from allegations that the authorities had failed to implement binding judicial directions despite the petitioner having been declared successful in the selection process for the post of Joint Secretary and Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Law and Justice. While an offer of appointment had been issued in November 2021 and accepted shortly thereafter, the process remained incomplete for nearly two years due to administrative delays and continued litigation. Concluding the matter, the Court held that since compliance had ultimately been effected and corrective directions had now been issued, no further action was required in the contempt proceedings, which were accordingly disposed of. (ANI)
|
