CP No. 144/2004 in OA No. 3102/2003. Case: Shri Gopal Saran Vs Shri K.N. Aggarwal. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberCP No. 144/2004 in OA No. 3102/2003
CounselFor Appellant: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate and For Respondents: Mrs. Meenu Mainee, Advocate
JudgesSudhir Kumar, Member (A) and V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
IssueContempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 12, 13, 18, 2(b), 2(c), 20
Judgement DateMay 16, 2014
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


Sudhir Kumar, Member (A), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)

1. The petitioner had filed OA No. 3102/2003 seeking quashing of the Memorandum/Charge-Sheet and the Enquiry Report. His OA was allowed on 06.08.2003, by quashing the Memorandum and findings of the Enquiry Officer.

2. In between the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, in short) had met, and the petitioner's case had been kept in a sealed cover. In his OA the petitioner had also prayed for opening of the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the DPC, and for promotion to be granted to him. Oral orders in this OA were passed at the admission stage itself, without issuance of notice to the respondents, and directions were issued that the Respondent No. 2 Director General (Works), Directorate General of Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, would consider the request of the petitioner/applicant of that O.A., dated 19.08.2003, and take necessary steps in accordance with law, preferably within three months of the receipt of the certified copy of that order, and a speaking order was ordered to be passed and communicated to the petitioner/applicant in this regard.

3. When there was delay in implementation of the directions regarding opening of the sealed cover, the petitioner had filed CP No. 144/2004 on 21.04.2004, alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal. That CP later on came to be disposed of on merits on 16.08.2004, noting that the respondents of the OA had since challenged the orders passed in OA No. 3102/2003, and the stay application was also pending, and following the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Avadh Singh vs. Lalji Yadav and Ors. in SLP (Cri) No. 2253/2000 dated 20.08.2001 by a three-judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Contempt proceedings were closed and notices issued to the respondents were discharged, but liberty was granted to the petitioner to revive his C.P. once the decision is rendered by the Hon'ble High Court on the stay application filed by the respondents. It is seen that in the above cited case of Ram Avadh Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the law as follows:-

Leave granted.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where proceedings for contempt should have been initiated, especially in view of the fact that against the judgment which was delivered against the appellant an appeal had been filed and neither the appeal nor even the stay application has been decided. In view of the pendency of the said stay application, the contempt proceedings are ordered to be withdrawn. If the stay applications are dismissed, it would then be open to the respondents to take further action. The High Court should dispose of the stay application as expeditiously as possible and without granting any further adjournment.

The appeal is disposed of.

4. As has been deciphered by us from the pleadings, the WP (C) No. 3200-3202/2004 filed by the respondents against the orders of this Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.12.2009 in default of non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel as per Annexure-C (page-38 of the earlier MA No. 1477/2011 filed by the petitioner for revival of his CP No. 144/2004). That MA No. 1477/2011 praying for revival of the C.P. was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench through order dated 31.01.2012 by recording its findings as follows:-

MA 1477/2011 has been filed by the applicant seeking revival of CP 144/2004. As the main order was passed in the OA in favour of applicant on 06.08.2003 whereby the memorandum and the findings of the enquiry officer were quashed and set aside and it was further held that applicant would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. However, the said order was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Writ Petition has been dismissed on 05.04.2011 which has not been challenged by them in the apex court, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality. Yet the orders have not been complied with by the respondents.

2. Counsel for the respondents has handed over order dated 19.12.2011 in court and served a copy of the same on the counsel for the applicant also, whereby the memorandum dated 29.12.1997 has been withdrawn against the applicant.

3. Shri K.C. Barolia, Engineer Officer (D)-II, who was present in the court, gave a statement at bar that the consequential benefits would also be released in favour of the applicant within a period of two months. Recording the statement of the officer, this MA stands disposed of.

5. The reference to the Hon'ble High Court's judgment dated 05.04.2011 in the above order, though it was mentioned to be for the purpose of disposing of Writ Petitions filed by the official respondents, was actually not with reference to a judgment on Writ Petitions No. 3200-32/2004, which already stood dismissed in default on 15.12.2009, but that reference was to the speaking orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court for rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1867-68/2011, praying before the Hon'ble High Court for restoration of those Writ Petitions dismissed in default on 15.12.2009, after condoning delay of 361 days in filing the concerned Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. The Hon'ble High Court had on 05.04.2011 rejected the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions praying for condoning the delay, and restoring the WPs by recording as follows:-

In the circumstances, it is difficult to infer that the petitioner has not been able to make out sufficient cause for non-appearance of his counsel and the petitioner on 15th December, 2009, nor there is sufficient cause for condonation of 361 days' delay in filing the application seeking restoration of the writ petition.

In the circumstances, the applications are without any merit and they are, therefore, dismissed.

6. Nearly 8 months after the disposal of the MA No. 1477/2011 through orders as cited in para 4/above, the petitioner filed a second MA No. 2679/2012, once again praying for revival of his CP No. 144/2004.

7. In this MA, the present petitioner, as miscellaneous applicant, had submitted that since, with the dismissal of the Writ Petitions by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.12.2009, and the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions for restoration of the Writ Petitions through orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 05.04.2011, the order of this Tribunal dated 06.08.2003 has become final, the respondents are bound to implement the same in letter and spirit. He had submitted that he had issued a Legal Notice dated 17.09.2010 to the respondents but no proper action has been taken by the respondents so far. He had further pointed out that his earlier MA No. 1477/2011 for revival of the Contempt Petition had been disposed of on 31.01.2012 on the statement of the officials of the respondent Department that they would grant consequential benefits to the applicant within two months, as they had already withdrawn the Charge Sheet against the applicant vide order dated 19.12.2011, but they have failed to take any further action in the matter subsequently. His another legal Notice to the respondents dated 24.04.2012 had also met with no result, and, therefore, he had prayed for revival of the CP No. 144/2004.

8. On 18.04.2013, this MA No. 2679/2012 was allowed by a coordinate Bench, and C.P. No. 144/2004 was ordered to be revived, with a direction being issued in the C.P. to the respondents to file compliance affidavit within four weeks.

9. The respondents thereafter filed their compliance affidavit on 12.07.2013 reiterating their contentions and submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,13,001/- towards arrears of pay, consequent upon grant of financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP, in short) Scheme w.e.f. 09.08.1999 has been paid to the petitioner of the C.P. through Cheque No. 223789 dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure A-4 of the compliance affidavit). It was further submitted that consequent upon the revision of pay of the applicant, on account of his financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, his pension, entitlement to Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), commutation of pension and family pension has also been revised by the PA&O, and a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO, in short) has been issued vide letter dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure A-5 of the compliance affidavit) with the stipulation that the additional amount in this regard would be paid to the applicant by the Bank from which he is drawing his pension.

10. It was further submitted that Rs. 21,930/- has also been sanctioned towards the difference of leave encashment in respect of the leave standing at the credit of the petitioner at the time of his retirement on superannuation vide Office Order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure A-6 of the compliance affidavit). It was, therefore, prayed that the order dated 06.08.2003 in his OA No. 3010/2002 stands fully complied with, and that the C.P. may be disposed off.

11. However, the petitioner was still not satisfied, and he filed a reply to this compliance affidavit on 06.09.2013. In this, he had again reiterated that the recommendations of the DPC kept in a sealed cover in his case has not opened, and the consequential financial benefits have not been disbursed to him till date, and had submitted that only payments of the principal amounts will not be full...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT