Adeel Ahmed v. Dr P C Tulsian

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 434/2017 ADEEL AHMED ..... Petitioner Through:

None.

versus DR P C TULSIAN ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Anurag Mathur, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 18.01.2018 Mr. Mathur states, as the compliance affidavit was filed beyond the period of two weeks, the same has been returned by the Registry under objections. He has placed before me the copy of the counter affidavit returned under objections. The same is taken on record. Mr. Mathur has drawn my attention to page 16 of the counter-affidavit to state, the order dated September 14, 2016 has been complied with and decision of the College Complaints Committee in its meeting held on December 17, 2016 has been conveyed to the petitioner.

I find there is no appearance for the petitioner, even on the second call. I have seen the minutes of the meeting dated December 17, 2016 of the

College Complaints Committee, wherein in para 12, following has been stated:- "12. Thus, this Committee recommends that Dr. B.N. Ray be dismissed from service with all attendant consequences including forfeiture/withholding of future Pension and forfeiture/withholding of Gratuity and employer‟s share of Provident Fund."

In view of the submission made by Mr. Mathur, that the order dated September 14, 2016 has been complied with, nothing further survives in the Contempt Petition. The same is disposed of. Since this order is being passed in the absence of the petitioner, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the non compliance of the order dated September 14, 2016, liberty is granted to the petitioner to revive the petition.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J JANUARY 18, 2018/ak