AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. SudhiRanjan Mishra, J.M.
The applicant alleging deliberate non compliance and violation of the order of this Tribunal dated 16.12.2024 passed in OA No. 622/2019 has filed this Contempt Petition praying as under:
a)To admit the Contempt Application and issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why:
b)Appropriate contempt proceeding shall not be initiated against him and he shall not be prosecuted and punished suitably by this Hon’ble Tribunal, for non compliance/violation of order 161/12/2024 passed in OA 622/2019 by this Hon’ble Tribunal;
c)He shall not be directed to comply the order 16/2/2024 passed in OA 622/2019 by this Hon’ble Tribunal forthwith;
d)He shall not be directed to pay the arrear dues of the applicant with interest within a stipulated period.
This Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2024 in OA No.622/2019 had passed the following orders:
The applicant has filed this OA challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the grievance of the applicant to extend the consequential service benefits as per deemed date of redeployment ordered by the DOP&T dated 19.07.2016. He has prayed for following reliefs:
i.To direct the respondents to carry out the order of the DOPT dt. 19.07.2016 vide Annexure A/4 within a short stipulated period.
ii.To direct the respondents to calculate, sanction and disburse the consequential service and financial benefits to the applicant within short stipulated period.
iii.And be pleased to pass any other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2.Heard both sides and perused the records.
3.It is the case of the applicant that he and some other employees of National Savings Organization were redeployed as Inspector of Income Tax after being rendered surplus. DOPT considered the case of different DSOs who have been redeployed as Inspector of Income Tax vide order dated 20.07.2015 & 27.07.2016 had directed to treat 21.01.2004 and 08.04.2004 as deemed date of redeployment to six DSOs who joined in 2004. It is contended by the applicant that the authorities granted benefit in favour of similar employees i.e. Shri Manish Kumar and V SreenivasRao but not in favour of the applicant. It is also submitted that inspite of several representations being made by the applicant the same was not considered.
4.Ld. Counsel for the respondents referring to Annexure A/4 mentioned that similar benefits given to Shri Manish Kumar vide Annexure A/3 has been extended to applicant.
5.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order being referred by respondents at A/3 is a promotion order for Inspector to ITO, but the order issued at A/4 is yet to be implemented giving him deemed redeployment w.e.f. 2004. Learned counsel for the applicant referring to order at Annexure A/7 regarding Shri Manish Kumar, pleads that a similar order regarding applicant needs to be issued by the authorities.
6.Even though vide order at Annexure A/4, the applicant has been treated as deemed re-deployed with effect from 08.04.2004 which was accorded to the similarly situated six other DSOs vide department order dated 27.06.2016 but no consequential order as at Annexure A/7 (in case of Shri Manish Kumar) has been passed in favour of the applicant. Since there is no dispute with regard to claim of the applicant vide Annexure A/4, the authorities are directed to issue consequential orders as done in respect of ShriMansih Kumar within thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.
7.The OA is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that he has filed compliance affidavit enclosing order dated 27.01.2024 wherein the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of Income Tax Inspector is fixed below Sr. C K Ghadei and above Sri U C Routrey for the year R Y 2004-05 and in the cadre of Income Tax Officer below Sri Anand Singh Fonia and above Sri Chandan Kumar Ghadei for the RY 2016-17 and it is also stated that the applicant is entitled to fixation of pay in the grade of Inspector of Posts w.e.f. 08.04.2004 and arrear pay, if any. He submitted that order of this Tribunal has been complied.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant objected to the same and submitted that in case of the applicant his scale of pay has been earlier fixed at Rs. 7500-12000/- thereby he has been granted Rupees one thousand more during refixation of scale of pay as on dt.21.04.2004 mentioning that same is on the basis of OM dtd. 21.04.2004 knowing that the same is not true/correct as the said OM is not applicable to the case of employees for deemed date of redeployment that like one of applicant and subsequently re fixing the pay @ Rs. 6500/- as on 21.04.2004 on the plea that OM applied is not applicable to the applicant and thereby causing a financial loss of Rs. 1000/-to the applicant as on dt.21.04.2004 and more during consequential revisions. Therefore he submitted that his pay should have been fixed at Rs. 7500-250-12000/- instead of Rs. 6500-200-10500/- due to deemed date of re-deployment. The applicant filed his objection stating therein that though the name of the applicant was recommended for the Selection Year 2008 (A) and his juniors namely Rashimi Ranjan Nayak & Bijay KetanAcharya were recommended unconditionally the applicant should have been given benefit as against the select year 2008 A.
Heard both sides and perused the records.
We may record 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 proceeding known to law but that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order re-examining the judicial review in contempt proceedings. In this regard the relevant portion of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.S.Parihar v. GanpatDuggar and Ors, reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1422 is quoted herein below:
7."...The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. 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 aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order.re-examining 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..." [emphasis added]
Accordingly since an order has been passed as per direction of this Tribunal, keeping in mind the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in JS Parihar (supra) and if the applicant is aggrieved by any action arising from it, as fixation of pay in the instant case, there arises a fresh cause of action and it cannot be said that there is any willful contempt. Accordingly, the CP is dropped. Notices issued are discharged.