AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Heard Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent.
Instant Execution Application was filed by the applicant seeking to initiate the execution proceedings to execute the judgment and order dated 08.02.2006 passed in O.A. 321/2004. The operative portion of the judgment is quoted as under:-
35.In the result, the OA is allowed. Order dated 02-09-2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is declared that the applicant is entitled to be reinstated and regularized as done in the case of Prahlad and others in OA No. 1550/92. On regularization, the applicant shall be fixed his pay No on notional basis and increment in pay be added to the applicant and his pay on the date of his joining and regularization shall be fixed accordingly. arrears are payable to the applicant. Other benefit of seniority and further promotion if any, would however, accrue.
The delay condonation application filed along with the execution application has already been allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.02.2026. Thereafter, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the execution of the judgment and order. It has been submitted that the writ petition preferred by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment and order passed in the Original Application was dismissed. Subsequently, the respondents filed a recall/restoration application, which is still Central Administrative Tribunalpending adjudication. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to keep the execution application in abeyance till the final adjudication of the recall/restoration application. Several other grounds have also been raised by the respondents in opposition to the execution application.
I have considered the submissions raised on behalf of the parties and gone through entire records.
Perusal of the record reveals that the Original Application was decided on 08.02.2006 in the manner quoted hereinabove. The judgment and order passed in the Original Application was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents moved a recall/restoration application, which is stated to be pending adjudication. It further appears that a contempt petition was also filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking compliance with the directions issued in the Original Application; however, the said contempt petition was dismissed with liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal. Pursuant thereto, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing the present execution application. The delay condonation application filed along with the execution application has already been allowed by the Tribunal.
The respondents have admittedly not complied with the directions contained in the judgment passed in the Original Application. It is also not disputed that there is no order of stay operating against the said judgment from the Hon’ble High Court or from any other competent court of law. The objections raised by the respondents in the present execution proceedings cannot be adjudicated upon in the manner sought by them, particularly when the grounds now being urged were already available to the respondents and had been taken in their counter affidavit filed in the Original Application. Those grounds were, therefore, available for consideration before the judgment was passed. The respondents cannot be permitted to reagitate, in execution proceedings, issues which already stood considered and decided in the Original Application. The respondents are bound to comply with the directions contained in the judgment.
It is also immaterial, for the purpose of implementation of the judgment, whether the applicant has, in the meantime, crossed the age of superannuation. The Original Application was decided in the year 2006 and, at the time of passing of the judgment, the applicant had not attained the age of superannuation. Even assuming that the applicant has since attained the age of superannuation, such subsequent event does not create any impediment in implementing the directions issued by this Tribunal. The benefit flowing from the judgment can be extended by regularising the applicant’s service in terms of the operative portion of the judgment and by extending the consequential retiral benefits. The arrears, if any, accruing to the applicant pursuant to such implementation are also required to be paid in accordance with the judgment. Thus, the grounds taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit are not acceptable.
Accordingly, list the matter on 05.11.2026 for compliance. The respondents are hereby directed to file a proper compliance affidavit before the next date. In case of failure to comply with the directions given in the OA, the applicant shall be at liberty to take appropriate further steps, including seeking attachment of the bank account(s) of the concerned competent authority and/or attachment of the office of the competent authority, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.