AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per. Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
We heard the learned counsels for the parties.
It is undisputed that in the present pleadings, the petitioner has alleged wilfull default of the Tribunal’s Order dated 30.11.2012 passed in OA No.2068/2008. The operative portion of the said order reads thus:
“The OA is therefore, allowed, and the impugned order at Annexure A-2 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is declared that the applicant's pay scale as of the date of reappointments as DBW and shall not be less than the one in which he was placed prior to acquiring his disability and accordingly, he shall be paid the second ACP financial upgradation as on 01.06.2000 Jin the pay scale meant for Highly Skilled and fürther upgradation on completion of 30 years i.e.of 01 09-2008 under the MACP. Respondents are directed to pass suitable orders in this regard and as the applicant would have, by now superannuated, his Pension and other terminal benefits be also reviewed and recalculated. This order shall be complied with in full within a period of eight months from the date of communication. Under the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs "
In response to the notice, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit wherein they have asserted as under:
‘It is humbly submitted that, with respect to the above judgement, the respondent had granted ACP-II to the applicant vide Factory Order, Pt-II No. 1513 dt. 25/04/2014 in S-7 (Rs.4000-100-6000) pay scale, which is attached to the post of High Skilled grade w.e.f 01/06/2000 and granted MACP-III in PB-I pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800 w.e.f 01/09/2008. In this regard, a copy of the factory order dt. 25.04.2014 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-A. It is further submitted that the pay fixation on grant of ACP-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 w.e.f. 01/06/2000 and MACP-III in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-w.e.f. 01/09/2008 has been fixed in respect of Shri Deorao Vithoba Kirmire vide OFCH Factory Part-II No.1570 dated 30/04/2014. The same is Annexure R-B.
From the above, it can be revealed that the respondents had fully implemented the Judgement order dated 30/11/2012.’
It is undisputed that this Tribunal vide Order/ Judgement dated 04.01.2018 has disposed of OA Nos.517, 518 and 606 of 2015 vide common Order/Judgement with directions as under:
‘The respondents are directed to review the cases of the applicants on the above basis and to grant relief accordingly within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. ‘ The said common Order/Judgement dated 04.01.2018 was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide Order/Judgement dated
02.05.2025. The observation of the said order read as under.:
“1.Heard.
2.Mr. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the Applicants/Respondents, submits that the common order dated 01.09.2023 in Writ Petition No.4184/2018 Shri Mukunda Budharam Shiwarkar & Ors. Vs The Union of India & Ors., and Writ Petition No.4229/2018 Shri Deorao Vithoba Kirmire Vs. The Union of India & Ors., requires clarification on the ground, that Deorao Vithoba Kirmire the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4229/2018, has already been granted ACP-II in terms of the order dated 30.11.2012 in O.A. No. 2068/2008 (page 64), and therefore, insofar as Deorao Vithoba Kirmire is concerned, the order of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 2068/2008 stands already complied with. In case, the order is already complied with the Applicants, need not have any apprehension regarding the same, as it is a position which could always be pointed out to the Court, at any point of time.
3.That being the position, we do not see any reason for clarification. The Application is therefore dismissed. No costs.” As such an Order/Judgement of the Tribunal attained finality after the disposal of the Writ Petition by the Hon’ble High Court in the matter. The respondents have further stated in the said reply affidavit that they have reviewed the case, in the light of the applicable instructions and disposed of the case with a speaking order dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure R-C).
In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 07.04.2018 said to have been passed in purported compliance of the directions of the Tribunal contained in common Order dated 04.01.2018 passed in OA No.517/2015 is illegal and not a correct one and not sustainable in law.
We have considered the submissions made by the parties. There is a specific averment of the respondents about compliance of the directions of the Tribunal contained in Order/Judgement dated 30.11.2012. What is being disputed by the petitioner is that the common Order dated 04.01.2018 passed in purported compliance of the directions of the Tribunal in OA No.517/2015 (supra). This cannot be disputed in this CP proceeding as the same may lead to a fresh cause, legality of which cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings. In this regard, we draw support from the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in J.S Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar {(1996) 6 SCC 291} , wherein it is stated in para 6 as under:
“6.…….It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with
the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.”
In the light of the aforesaid, the present CP is closed. Notices are discharged. However, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate any surviving grievance afresh in accordance with law, if so advised.