AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Mallika Arya, AM.-
This Contempt Petition has been filed by the applicant alleging non compliance of the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/794/2014.
Counsel for the applicant stated that while disposing the Original Application, this Tribunal directed the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. However, vide the so called compliance report dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure R-1), the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant for regularisation stating that the record of his Casual Labour services is not available in the Railways. He has further stated that in his representation, the applicant has categorically mentioned regarding the duties discharged as Casual Labour under the PWI Chitrakoot Dham Karvi from 31.12.1985 to 31.01.1986 (32 days) and 04.02.1986 to 04.09.1986 (213 days). The respondents are the custodian of the service particulars of the employees. Therefore, if the service record of the period mentioned above is not available with the respondents, the applicant cannot be made suffer due to the lapses on behalf of the respondents.
Counsel for the applicant further stated that the issue regarding non availability of service record of an employee has been considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ-A No.5008/2024 dated 04.08.2025, wherein it has been observed as under:
“11.It is trite that the responsibility of safe keeping and upkeep of service records of an employee is upon the department itself and not the employee and in case such service records are missing or misplaced, onus is upon the department itself to complete such service details of an employee. In the absence of any such service records, the department cannot take benefit of such an omission nor such burden can be shifted upon the employee so as to deny him benefits to which he is justifiably expected.”
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that the limited directions of this Tribunal to decide the representation of the applicant have been complied with by way of reasoned and speaking order dated 30.03.2024. Hence, there is no disobedience of the orders passed by this Tribunal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The Original Application No.200/794/2014 (supra) was disposed vide the order dated 26.02.2024 with the following observations:
“The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant aggrieved by rejection of his case for regularisation.
2.Today, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that certain other persons, who were also seeking regularisation of their services, had approached this Tribunal, wherein directions to regularise their services have been issued by this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant will be satisfied if this Original Application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to file a comprehensive representation before the respondent department, who, in turn, may be directed to consider and decide the same in a time-bound manner.
3.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of the applicant for regularisation has already been turned down by the respondents.
4.Keeping in view the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, we dispose of this Original Application with liberty to the applicant to file a comprehensive representation along with relevant documents/orders before the respondent department, within a period of 15 days from today. On receipt of such representation, the competent authority of the respondent department shall consider and decide the same, within a period of 90 days by passing a reasoned and speaking order. No order as to costs.”
It is evident on perusal of the order dated 26.02.2024 that the said Original Application was disposed giving liberty to the applicant to file a comprehensive representation along with relevant documents/orders before the respondent department and the representation was required to be considered and decided by the respondents by passing a reasoned and speaking order. During the course of arguments, counsel for the applicant apart from relying on the documents annexed in the Original Application, has failed to show further documentary evidence which he was required to submit along with his representation to substantiate that he has actually been working as Casual Labour during the period from 31.12.1985 to 31.01.1986 (32 days) and 04.02.1986 to 04.09.1986 (213 days). The order dated 30.03.2024 (Annexure R-1) has been passed by the respondents in terms of the directives of this Tribunal on the basis of documents available with them.
It is a settled principle that “rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings” [Union of India and others vs. Subedar Devassy PV, AIR 2006 SC 909]. Thus, in a contempt case, we cannot decide about the correctness of the interpretation put forward by the respondents or the applicants. The respondents have passed orders in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal based upon their own interpretation and perception of these orders and they cannot be said to have committed willful disobedience of the orders of this Tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find the action of the respondents contemptuous. Hence, the proceedings under this Contempt Petition are dropped and the Contempt Petition is closed. The respondents are discharged from the notice of contempt.