AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
BY JUSTICE RAJIV JOSHI, MEMBER – J.:-
The present Review Application has been filed by the applicant (applicant in the Contempt Petition) by in Person, under circulation seeking a review of the order dated 21.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal in Contempt Petition No.178/2025 in O.A. No.1105/2022. The Operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:-
5.Since the applicant was never demoted and is still working as ASTE/HQ as per the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal and further he was getting the financial benefit out of his promotion which is shown in the salary slip of January, 2025 to March, 2025. Subsequently, one another compliance affidavit has been filed on 21.07.2026 by the respondents annexing the salary slip of June, 2026 and as such, the applicant was getting full promotional and monetary benefit as per the eligibility on the date of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in OA No. 1105/2022.
6.Objection of the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents on 21.07.2026 was filed by the applicant in which it is stated in para 11 that so-called compliance affidavit relied upon by the respondents is merely an eyewash and does not satisfy the mandatory directions issued by this Tribunal. Thereafter, some judgment was also quoted in para 14 & 16 which indicates that willful non-compliance amounting the disobedience. It is obligation of the concerned authority to see the implementation as well as the operative direction.
7.From the record, it reflects that the applicant nowhere denied that the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in OA No. 1105/2022 by this Tribunal has not been complied with.
8.In view of the above, the instant proceeding of Contempt Petition is closed and consigned to record. Notices issued to the respondents have been discharged.
9.M.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
The applicant, who filed instant application, stated that the respondents did not produce any order/letter demonstrating actual and complete compliance with the operative direction contained in para 11 of the order dated 11.03.2025 passed in O.A. No.1105/2022 and as such, order dated 21.07.2026 passed in C.P. No.178/2025 may kindly be recalled/reviewed.
It appears that order of this Tribunal dated 21.07.2026 passed in C.P. No.178/2025 on merits as the order of this Tribunal was complied with by the respondents and passed in the open Court in the presence of the applicant.
Further, it is important to note that a Review Application is not maintainable against an order passed in contempt proceedings, unless specifically permitted under the statute. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for an appeal under Section 19 only against an order imposing punishment. There is no provision for a review/recall of an order passed in contempt matters.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice and the Central Administrative Tribunal (Contempt of Court) Rules, 1992, do not confer any power on the Tribunal to entertain a review or recall of its own order passed on merits in a contempt petition.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1814, held that:
"It is well settled that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a provision therefrom.”
The Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1111/2000 (Satyapal Singh v. I.M.G. Khan), in its decision dated 11.06.2013, considered the issue of maintainability of review/recall applications in contempt proceedings and held categorically that:
“24.In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is our considered view that recall application is not maintainable against an order passed in a contempt case decided on merits. ………..”
This view has been consistently followed and upheld in subsequent judgments, including by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 66/2013 (Mahavir Prasad v. CAT, Lucknow Bench) by observing that recall/ review application is not maintainable.
In view of the above discussions, instant review application is not maintainable. Accordingly, instant application stands dismissed as not maintainable.
Pending M.A., if any, will be treated as disposed of.
M.A., if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.