AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Mallika Arya, AM;
This Contempt petition has been filed by the applicant against the respondents/contemnors for willful and deliberate disobedience of common order dated 06.03.2024 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/96/2019 and other connected OAs. The operative part of the order is as under:
“12.In view of the aforesaid, all these Original Applications are disposed of with the directions to the respondents to examine the vacancy position in the Employment notice No. 02/2010 dated 15.12.2010 and if the vacancies exists, consider the applicants for appointment to the post of Group 'D' under replacement quota as per RBE No 73/2008 dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure A/19) after receipt of Certified Copy of the order of this Tribunal and thereafter issue offer of appointment to the applicants who are declared suitable/fit for job.
Against the orders of this Tribunal, the respondents filed WPS No.7469/2024 (UOI and others vs. Lajja Ram Meena and others) which was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh wherein the orders of this Tribunal have been upheld vide order dated 05.12.2025. The operative portion of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh reads as under:
“The respondents (Railways/SECR) shall, through an officer not below the rank of Divisional Railway Manager or an officer of equivalent administrative standing assisted by a small team, carry out a focused vacancy audit of Employment Notice No. SECR/02/2010 dated 15.12.2010 (including all part-panels and replacement/wait lists) and the subsequent recruitments in 2018 and 2019 relevant to the posts in question. The audit shall record, with documentary support, (i) posts originally advertised but not finally filled from the 2010 process, (ii) posts subsequently filled in subsequent recruitments and the authority by which they were filled, and (iii) posts that still, on paper and in fact, remain unfilled and are legally capable of being filled from the 2010 replacement list.”
The counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have not been considered for appointment despite there being 624 vacancies as mentioned by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 11360-11363 of 2018). Out of these 427 vacancies still remain unfilled. The applicants’ counsel is challenging the vacancy position and is also aggrieved with the audit report prepared by the respondents (Annexure CR/2). She has further submitted that the redressal of the grievance of the applicants is to be taken care of by this Tribunal in light of the observations of Hon’ble High Court at Bilaspur.
The counsel for the respondents submits that the contempt filed by the applicants is not tenable. He has submitted that the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kashyap (supra) was limited only to the applicants therein who had approached this Tribunal. They have submitted the compliance report along with vacancy audit position (Annexure CR/2). They have also contended that the applicants have not challenged this report at any stage of the pleadings.
We have considered the matter.
On perusal of case records, it is evident that there was a limited direction to the respondents by the Hon’ble High Court of Bilaspur to re-calculate the vacancies and in case any vacancies remain then the case of the applicants should be considered if they are found eligible.
The position on the merit of the case cannot be looked into by way of contempt petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Union Of India And Ors vs Subedar Devassy Pv decided on 10.01.2006, held as follows:
“If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.”
In the case of M. K. Sthapak vs Prashant Mehta (Conc. No 196/2018) decided on 27.04.2018, the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that:
“21.…., it is apparent that once the order of which non-compliance is alleged has been complied with, one way or the other, the Court cannot sit and decide its correctness, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, nor the Court could have granted a relief which was beyond the relief granted in the said order. In the instant case also, once the order of State Administrative Tribunal stands complied with, one way or other, it was not open for the Court to dissect the said order and examine its correctness on merits, and then to further grant relief to the petitioner.”
In light of the vacancy audit report (Annexure CR/2) submitted by the respondents along with their reply to the contempt petition and the case laws on the subject, we hold that the compliance of the order of this Tribunal has been done. If any grievance remains, the applicants are at liberty to agitate the issue by way of an Original Application.
Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is hereby closed and the respondents/contemnors are discharged from the notice of Contempt.