← Library
High Court of DelhiCONT.CAS(C)/543/2018

Anita Thukral v. Rita Chaudhary & ORS

2018-07-24Hon'Ble Mr. Justice P.S.Teji2 pages

$~39 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CONT.CAS(C) 543/2018 ANITA THUKRAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Nalin Tripathi, Ms.

Sampa Sengupta Ray and Mr.

Amogh Vaishishta, Advocates versus RITA CHAUDHARY & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 24.07.2018 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent/contemnor of the order passed by this Court on 06.07.2018. The order dated 06.07.2018 reads as under : "The present application has been moved by the petitioner seeking interim direction for stay of the operation of the impugned order/judgment dated 01.06.2018 passed by the appellant authority. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 is still in service as on today.

In the facts and circumstances, there is no question of stay of the impugned order/judgment. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be decided expeditiously."

As per the order dated 06.07.2018, the stay was declined in W.P.(C) 6874/2018.

Now the present contempt petition has been filed by the applicant/respondent no.1 on the ground that the petitioner in the writ

petition is not permitting the applicant/respondent no.1 to enter into service. Perusal of order dated 06.07.2018 is itself clear that the applicant was found to be in job and that was the reason, no stay was granted against the petitioner in the writ petition.

In the present case, the stay was declined on the admitted fact that the applicant/respondent no.1 was already in employment. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the petitioner is creating hurdles in the discharge of duties.

As discussed above, the stay has already been declined as the petitioner and even as per the applicant, she is still in service. Counsel for the applicant miserably failed to demonstrate that there is any wilful disobedience, particularly when the application for stay against the petitoner has already been dismissed.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no contempt is made out.

The present contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. P.S.TEJI, J JULY 24, 2018 dd