Primary sources · Judgment
HARANANDA Vs V.K. YADAV & ANR
CONT.CAS(C) 482/2019 Page 1 of 7
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010244482019
+ CONT.CAS(C) 482/2019
HARANANDA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Mr. H.S.
Tiwari, Mr. Roshan Kumar,
Ms. Garima Singh & Ms.
Nandita Lal, Advocates.
versus
V.K. YADAV & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC
with Ms. Himanshi Singh &
Ms. Monalisha Pradhan,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Contempt Petition has been filed under Sections 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rules framed
thereunder read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950
seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) Initiate contempt proceedings for willful, deliberate and
contemptuous disobedience of solemn order dated 04.12.2012 in
WP (Civil) No. 6314 of 2012 as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide judgment dated 05.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 1474
(arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12393 of 2013.
(b) Issue any other/further direction as this Hon‟ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
CONT.CAS(C) 482/2019 Page 2 of 7
2. The Petitioner herein has been litigating for a considerable
period of time in an endeavour to secure enforcement of his rights in
terms of the previous Orders passed by this Court. The continued
apathy on the part of the Respondents is a matter of serious concern to
this Court.
3. Even today, an Affidavit dated 29.07.2026 has been filed on
behalf of the Respondents wherein it is sought to be explained that the
directions passed on 04.12.2012 [“said directions”] by this Court
could not be complied with on account of the pendency of proceedings
before a Larger Bench of this Court, wherein certain Rules governing
the Railway Protection Force [“RPF”] are stated to be under
challenge. The challenge in the said proceedings is to Rules 54(1)(c),
76 and 277 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, insofar as the
said Rules permit the deputation of officers of the Indian Police
Service [“IPS”] to the RPF.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents relies upon the Reference
Order dated 21.08.2017, pursuant to which the challenge raised in the
said proceedings came to be referred for consideration by a Larger
Bench of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the pendency
of the said proceedings is highly relevant and crucial for the purpose
of undertaking the Cadre Review/Restructuring Exercise, since, in the
event the challenge in the said proceedings were to be allowed, the
Respondents would necessarily have to take into account the
possibility of IPS officers forming part of the cadre structure of the
RPF.
CONT.CAS(C) 482/2019 Page 3 of 7
6. Learned counsel for the Respondents, therefore, submits that
until the said proceedings are decided, it would not be possible for the
Respondents to undertake the Cadre Review/Restructuring Exercise in
terms of the said directions.
7. Per contra, Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that the Recruitment Rules, as they
presently stand, do not provide for appointment to any post by way of
deputation.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, even if
the submission advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the
Respondents were to be accepted, the same would amount to pre-
empting an exercise which is required to be undertaken at the present
stage, on the basis of a contingency which may or may not arise in the
future, depending upon the outcome of the pending proceedings. He
submits that the Respondents cannot seek to defer compliance with the
said directions on the basis of a mere possibility of a future
eventuality.
9. We find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the
Petitioner. The justification sought to be offered by the Respondents
for not undertaking the Cadre Review/Restructuring Exercise is
founded upon a contingency which may or may not arise, depending
upon the outcome of proceedings which are presently pending before
a Larger Bench of this Court.
10. Orders passed by this Court are required to be complied with in
their true letter and spirit. The manner in which the Respondents seek
to defer such compliance, by relying upon the mere pendency of
CONT.CAS(C) 482/2019 Page 4 of 7
proceedings which, at this stage, cannot be said to have any bearing
upon the Cadre Review/Restructuring Exercise directed to be
undertaken, is, to say the least, erroneous and wholly unjustified.
11. Prior to the promulgation of the Railway Protection Force
Rules, 2020, which constitute the statutory rules having received the
assent of the Hon‟ble President of India, it cannot be said that no
consideration was accorded to the various aspects governing the cadre,
including the issue of Cadre Review/Restructuring.
12. The framing of the said Rules would necessarily have involved
consideration of all such aspects. It is, therefore, incomprehensible as
to why, despite the aforesaid exercise having already been undertaken,
there continues to be a reluctance on the part of the Respondents to
carry out the Cadre Review/Restructuring in the spirit in which it is
required to be effected.
13. While it is correct that some exercise pertaining to the Cadre
Review/Restructuring appears to have been undertaken by the
Respondents, the same appears to have been confined only to the
aspect of framing of the Recruitment Rules.
14. The true import and spirit of the said directions passed by this
Court, however, was to undertake a comprehensive exercise for
reviewing or restructuring the cadre in the context of the RPF being an
organised Group „A‟ service.
15. It, therefore, appears that the said directions with respect to the
Cadre Review/Restructuring and the consequential changes required
to be brought about in the cadre structure, keeping in view the status
CONT.CAS(C) 482/2019 Page 5 of 7
of the RPF as an organised Group „A‟ service, have not, in fact, been
duly complied with.
16. We say so for the reason that, if the aforesaid exercise had been
undertaken in terms of the organisational structure applicable to
Central Civil Services, the same ought to have conformed to the
following tabular representation, as also asserted by the Respondents
themselves:
17. A perusal of the aforesaid tabular statement makes it apparent
that, although there would be a reduction in the overall number of
CONT.CAS(C) 482/2019 Page 6 of 7
posts, the number of promotional avenues, consistent with the
structure applicable to Group „A‟ services, would increase from the
level of DIG onwards, particularly at the DIG, SAG and HAG+ levels.
18. It is trite that personnel serving in any force look forward to
adequate avenues of career progression and promotion. It was,
therefore, incumbent upon the Respondents to undertake the Cadre
Review/Restructuring Exercise in a timely manner and in terms of the
said directions.
19. However, as is evident from the record, the Respondents have,
from time to time, sought to justify the delay in compliance by
advancing one or the other reason and that there has been an
inordinate delay in carrying out the said directions.
20. This Court is, therefore, of the view that there has been a clear
non-compliance with the said directions passed by this Court. The
affidavit filed today does not satisfactorily explain the continued
failure to comply with the said directions.
21. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view
that the concerned officers are guilty of contempt of Court on account
of non-compliance with the directions passed on 04.12.2012 by this
Court.
22. At this stage, on instructions from the officers of the
Respondents present in Court, learned counsel for the Respondents
submits and undertakes that the Cadre Review/Restructuring, in terms
of the directions dated 04.12.2012, shall be carried out and completed
within a period of three (03) months from today. This Court, however,
grants the Respondents four (04) months to do so.
CONT.CAS(C) 482/2019 Page 7 of 7
23. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, this Court is presently not
proceeding to pass any further directions in respect of the contempt,
and is of the view that holding the Respondents bound to their
undertaking, the petition can be disposed of with liberty to the
Petitioner to approach this Court and seek revival of the present
Contempt Petition in the event the aforesaid exercise, in terms of the
said directions and the undertaking furnished on behalf of the
Respondents, is not carried out within the stipulated period.
24. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending
application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 11, 2026/v/ma