AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—This Contempt Petition has been filed by deceased petitioner''s son alleging that the order passed by this Court dated 5th October, 2005 has not been complied with by the respondent.
By a judgment dated 5th October, 2005, the Division Bench of this Court gave following directions:
In view of the above findings, we have no option but to quash the order dated 14th February, 1985 passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate order dated 11th March, 1994 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 26th September, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding the same. However, as the disciplinary proceedings have been set aside for violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice, the respondent is entitled to continue with the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioner. If the respondents do not want to continue the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner will be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
Between hearing of the arguments and delivery of decision, the petitioner had died. The present Contempt Petition has been moved by his son. In response, the respondent has stated that petitioner''s son who was aware of death of his father had not informed the Court before delivery of judgment. Since the petitioner, Gulzar Singh had died, his reinstatement could not be done and no enquiry could be initiated against him afresh, the liberty of which was granted by the Court. Further averment is made that Gulzar Singh during his service had disclosed name of 3 family members, i.e., his wife Smt. Amarjit Kaur, his unmarried daughter, Baljit Kaur and Swinder Singh. The name of the petitioner was not disclosed. The Railway Administration however, decided to implement the Court order and Competent Authority directed that since Gulzar Singh had died before passing of the order, he could not be reinstated and directed for settlement of his retirement benefits on notional basis which were calculated and a notice was accordingly issued vide order dated 25th April, 2007. The pensionary benefits of the deceased Gulzar Singh thus got revised and as per revision a sum of Rs. 1,73,645/- would be additionally payable including Rs. 10,000/- costs. This amount was lying with Railway Administration and would be released on legal heirs certificate issued by a Competent Court.
A perusal of order passed by Railway Administration shows that Railway Administration fixed the pay of the respondent on notional basis for retirement benefits. I consider that in view of the judgment of this Court, the deceased was liable to get benefits as if he was reinstated in service from the date of his compulsory retirement upto date of his superannuation, i.e., upto 1st April, 1994.
Even if Gulzar Singh had been alive he could not have been reinstated in the services. At that time only notional reinstatement could have been done because he seems to have superannuated long back. Therefore, this notional reinstatement has to be done by Railway Authorities and consequential benefits have to be given to the LRs of Gulzar Singh. The amount accrued to Gulzar Singh has to be calculated and paid to his legal heirs. Since this has not been done, the order of Division Bench has not been complied with. The respondent is directed to comply the orders of Division Bench in true spirits. Fix this case on 21st January, 2009.