This contempt petition was filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) 15674/2025. The underlying writ petition had been filed by the petitioner—a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Physical Education—challenging his suspension order dated 16.08.2023, which followed his arrest in a criminal case under the POCSO Act, in which he was subsequently acquitted on 16.05.2025. In the writ proceedings, the High Court had directed the respondent-school to pass a speaking order regarding his suspension upon receiving the petitioner’s response to a communication dated 05.06.2025. During the contempt proceedings, the respondent-school placed on record orders dated 06.08.2026 demonstrating that the suspension order had been formally revoked and the departmental inquiry committee dissolved. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the contempt petition, noting that no further orders were required, while granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue legal remedies for any remaining grievances.
- Nature of Contempt Allegation: The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings alleging that the respondent-school deliberately failed to comply with the High Court’s directions to pass a speaking order concerning the review of his suspension.
- Compliance Through Subsequent Orders: During the hearing of the contempt petition, the respondent-school presented orders dated 06.08.2026, which formally dissolved the Departmental Action Committee and revoked the suspension order dated 16.08.2023 with effect from 30.09.2025.
- Treatment of Interim Period: The revocation order stipulated that the intervening period from 04.08.2023 to 30.09.2025 would be treated as “Not Spent on Duty” under the principle of “No Work No Pay,” as the delay was not attributable to the employer.
- Disposal and Liberty: Finding that substantial compliance had been achieved through the revocation of the suspension, the High Court closed the contempt proceedings while clarifying that the petitioner remained free to challenge any other grievances (such as the treatment of the intervening period) through appropriate legal remedies.
2026 DHC 6787
Shailendra Mohan Uppadhyaya v. Delhi Police Public School & Anr. (D.O.J. 14.08.2026)




