In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed a contempt petition filed by Dr. Praveen Singh, a cardiologist and former head of the Cardiology Department at Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital (RGSSH). The petition, invoking Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sought action against the respondents for allegedly willfully disobeying the court's earlier order regarding Dr. Singh’s termination.

Dr. Singh was terminated from his position through orders issued on March 9 and March 10, 2022. He challenged these orders in a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 4349/2022), claiming they were illegal as they were issued by an authority lacking the necessary competence. On November 16, 2023, the court ruled in Dr. Singh's favor, nullifying the termination orders and underscoring the need for any subsequent action to follow due legal processes.

The court’s decision was grounded in the recognition that the termination was initiated without proper authority. However, it also clarified that the ruling did not guarantee automatic reinstatement, emphasizing that the competent authority—the Governing Council (GC)—retained the discretion to determine employment conditions.

Following the court's order, Dr. Singh requested permission to rejoin his position, but this request was denied by the respondents, prompting him to issue a notice of contempt. He alleged that their refusal to reinstate him was a clear disregard for the court's ruling.

During the proceedings, Dr. Singh's counsel argued that the respondents had not adhered to the court's directions and had instead concocted baseless reasons to prevent his reinstatement. The counsel referenced various legal precedents to support the claim of willful disobedience.

Conversely, the respondents contended that Dr. Singh's contractual service had expired on February 28, 2022—before the termination order—and that the court's ruling did not obligate them to renew his contract. They pointed out that the GC had stipulated that Dr. Singh required specific clearances for any renewal, which had not been obtained.

Upon reviewing the case, the court noted that there was no evidence of deliberate disobedience by the respondents. The termination order was indeed set aside, but the ruling did not imply an automatic renewal of Dr. Singh’s contract. The court emphasized that while the GC was recognized as the competent authority, it had outlined requirements that Dr. Singh had not fulfilled, such as obtaining clearances from the Delhi Police and the Delhi Medical Council.

The judgment underscored that Dr. Singh did not have an inherent right to contract renewal after its expiration. The court cited precedent cases that reaffirmed the absence of an obligation for authorities to renew contracts once the stipulated term had lapsed.

The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed Dr. Singh’s contempt petition, affirming that the respondents acted within their legal rights by denying reinstatement based on the conditions set forth by the GC. The ruling highlights critical aspects of employment law, particularly the distinctions between termination, renewal, and the authority of governing bodies in making employment decisions. This case serves as a significant reminder of the importance of due process and the legal frameworks that govern employment relations in public institutions.