$~99
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
#	CNR No. DLHC010433652026
%					     Date of Decision: 14th September, 2026
+ 	CONT.CAS(C) 1684/2026 & CM APPL. 62247/2026
	SUNIL ARORA						.....Petitioner
Through:	Mr. Manindra Dubey, Mr. Sudhakar Dubey, Advocates (M:9810597966)
				versus

	DALIP KUMAR VERMA SECRETARY		.....Respondent
Through:	Mr. Anirudh, Advocate (M:9871139344)
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
	MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):			
1. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 21st May, 2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4987/2026, wherein, it was directed as follows:


2. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent, on advance notice, submits that the requisite Form in terms of the aforesaid order dated 21st May, 2026, has already been issued to the petitioner. He has handed over to this Court certain documents, which are certificates issued to the petitioner being Form 16AA and Form 16 Part A and Part B.
3. The aforesaid documents are taken on record. 
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid submission and submits that the petitioner has been issued Form 16, which is given to an employee. 
5. He submits that the petitioner was a Consultant and Advisor (Law) with the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been issued a certificate under Form 16A, which is issued to Consultants. 
6. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent disputes the aforesaid submission and submits that the petitioner was a salaried employee of the respondent, and not Consultant. 
7. This Court notes that the said issue was also raised earlier by the respondent before the Writ Court, by way of filing an application being CM APPL. 44491/2026, for modification of the order dated 21st May, 2026. 
8. The aforesaid application was disposed of vide order dated 06th August, 2026, in the following manner:



9. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed an application being CM APPL. 57703/2026, for recalling of the order dated 06th August, 2026. 
10. However, the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 25th August, 2026, in the following manner:




11. Perusal of the aforesaid orders brings to the fore that the Writ Court had stated in categorical terms that the claim of the petitioner has not been examined on merits. Therefore, as a corollary, this Court in the present contempt proceedings cannot go into the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to issuance of Form 16, which is given to an employee, or Form 16 A, which is given to Consultant. 
12. In the absence of any adjudication on the said dispute, as to whether the petitioner is to be treated as an employee or Consultant, no specific directions can be given by this Court in the present proceedings. 
13. Accordingly, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the Form 16 that has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedies in accordance with law, in order to adjudicate his status as an employee or as Consultant. 
14. Noting the aforesaid, the present petition, along with pending application, is accordingly, disposed of. 



MINI PUSHKARNA, J
SEPTEMBER 14, 2026/au



					
		
                                                  

Page 2 of 2