RAM MEHAR vs SUBHASISH PANDA

Judgment text excerpt

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1309/2023 & CM APPLs.56466/2024, 28347/2025, 11469/2026 RAM MEHAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Surabhi Chopra, Ms. Vibhuti Gupta, Advs. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Advs. versus SUBHASISH PANDA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral) 1. The present contempt petition was filed alleging contempt/ wilful disobedience of the judgment/ order dated 05.04.2023 passed by this Court in LPA No. 675/2022. 2. Vide order dated 24.01.2024, passed in these proceedings, it was noted that the DDA has challenged the aforesaid judgment/ order dated 05.04.2023 in the Supreme Court. It was also noticed that an interim order had been passed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of. 3. Subsequently, the SLP in the Supreme Court was dismissed. Consequently, the CM APPL. 56466/2024 came to be filed for revival of the present petition. Concededly, the directions contained in the judgment/ order dated 05.04.2023 need to be complied with. 4. The only controversy is as regards the computation of the amount/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 1309/2023 Page 1 of 4 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:11.05.2026 18:39:56 benefit due and payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the DDA is not computing the amount in consonance with the directions contained in the judgment/ order dated 05.04.2023, inasmuch as the benefit of Notional Promotion/ Increments/ ACP-MACP is not being extended to the petitioner. The operative directions of the Division Bench are as under:- 5. It is thus evident that although back wages were denied to the petitioner, it w