Maharaj Singh & ORS. v. Chetan Prakash Jain & ANR.
$~91 & 76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 51/2026 MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Mr.
Naved Khan, Ms. Renu, Advs.
versus CHETAN PRAKASH JAIN & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Atul Chauhan, Mr. Bhim Singh, Advs. for R1 Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Advs. along Mr. Nipun Jain (GP) for R2 + CONT.CAS(C) 45/2026, CM APPL. 1928/2026 PRASANNA KUMARI .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Mr.
Naved Khan, Ms. Renu, Advs versus CHETAN PRAKASH JAIN & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Atul Chauhan, Mr. Bhim Singh, Advs. for R1 Mr. T.P. Singh (Sr. CGSC) for R2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 13.01.2026
O R D E R
CM APPL.2060/2026 (Exemption) in CONT.CAS(C) 51/2026 1.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2.
The application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 51/2026 CONT.CAS(C) 45/2026 3.
The present petitions allege wilful disobedience of the directions The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
contained in the judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P(C) 980/2019. The operative directions in the said judgement are as under:- "18. In view of the limited relief now sought by the Petitioners and without entering into the merits of the inter se disputes, these writ petitions are disposed of leaving it open to the Petitioners to make a comprehensive representation(s) to CEL for reconsideration of the decision denying enhanced gratuity of Rs.20 lacs to the Petitioners in light of the submissions that may be made in the said representations and keeping in backdrop the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Nawab Khan (Supra) which was upheld by the Supreme Court. As and when the representation(s) are received, the same shall be decided by CEL within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed thereon. Needless to state Petitioners will be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies in case of any surviving grievance."
4.
It transpires that pursuant to the above directions, a speaking order dated 18.03.2025 has been passed by the Central Electronics Limited (CEL), inter alia, holding as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although a speaking order dated 18.03.2025 has been passed by CEL, the same is not in consonance with the dicta laid down in Nawab Khan v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 891/2016 and connected matters. It also transpires that the petitioners have already taken legal recourse by assailing the aforesaid speaking order by way of a substantive writ petition. 6.
Considering that the respondents have passed a speaking order in The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
terms of the directions contained in the judgment dated 17.09.2024 and on a perusal of the said speaking order, it cannot be said that there has been any wilful disobedience by the said respondents with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 17.09.2024.
7.
The petitioners are well within their rights to urge that the speaking order dated 18.03.2025 is based on a clear misconception and misunderstanding of the law laid down in Nawab Khan (Supra). However, this is an aspect which is required to be urged by the petitioners in the writ petition already filed.
8.
In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain these contempt petitions. Accordingly, the present contempt petitions are disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J JANUARY 13, 2026/uk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.