Mukesh Kumar Bhatia v. G.S. Patnaik & Ors

ORDER %? 24.11.2011 This contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the order dated 17.3.2011 passed in CM No.3738/2011 in WP(C) No.1769/2011. The following order was passed in the said CM: "This is an application for stay. Having heard Mr. Pankaj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. B.V. Niren, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and 3 respectively, it is directed that any promotion shall be subject to the result of this writ petition and equity shall be worked out at that stage. The application is accordingly disposed of." It is clear from the above that no orders restraining the respondents from making promotions were passed and it was directed that any promotion made in the meantime will be subject to the result of the writ petition and equity shall be worked out at that stage. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. NOVEMBER 24, 2011 dk HAI ENDLAW, J V Therefore, the order passed by the respondents making promotions is not in violation of the aforesaid order. However, we agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the prornotees should be informed about the aforesaid order and the promotion order should have contained stipulation to the effect that the promotion was subject to the result of the writ petition. We direct the Respondents to intimate the same to the prornotees by issuing a corrigendum. With this direction, this contempt petition is disposed of. ACTiCHIEF JUSTICE

IH * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +?CONT.CAS(C) 855/2011 MUKESH KUMAR BHATIA? Relator Through Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Advocate. versus G.S. PATNAIK & ORS.? Alleged contemnor Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW