AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As per: Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Heard the parties
The applicant has filed this petition for Civil Contempt invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking direction to pass an order for initiating Contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents so that the judgment dated 01.09.2016 in O.A./1386/2013 can be implemented on an early date and pass an order of imposing heavy cost on respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that vide order dated 01.09.2016 in OA/1386/2013, the respondents were directed to restore the applicant’s first and second MACPs with GP 4600/- and GP 4800/- from respective and the respondents have not granted 3rd MACP to the applicant, whereas similarly placed employees have been granted 3rd MACP in GP 5600/-.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that compliance reply affidavit has been filed on 25.03.2025 and additional reply also filed on 11.11.2025 and order dated 01.09.2016 has been duly complied with.
Mr. Piyush Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the dispute in the order dated 01.09.2016 in OA/1386/2013 was relating to the restoration of 1st and 2nd MACP and the same has been complied with.
Learned counsel for the applicant did not dispute the grant of 1st and 2nd MACP in GP 4600/- and GP 4800/- from the respective dates but contends that the respondents have not granted 3rd MACP benefit to the applicant.
Heard. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
The short issue regarding that arises for our consideration is as to “whether there is willful disobedience of order dated 01.09.2016 passed in O.A/1386/2016.
In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties, relevant para 8 of the order dated 01.09.2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA/1386/2016 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
8.The only issue to be decided is whether the order dated 1.9.1993 para 13 is merger of pay scales or is merger with promotion. 13.2 (b) uses the expression "supervisors who do not get promoted to pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8000/-,” whereas 13 (a) uses the expression of “all posts of Mistries should enbloc be upgraded to the posts of Junior Engineer Gr.Il in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8000 and merged with the respective. cadre of Technical Supervisors with its spread effect in higher grades. Rs.5,500-900, 6,500-10,500 & 7,450-11,500 as per the revised percentage distribution of posts prescribed for Technical Supervisors. in these orders”. However, para 13.2 is regarding procedure for fitment and, therefore, it cannot be treated as promotion as that would contradict 13 (a). Therefore, the scales were indeed merged. Once It is treated as merger, para 5 of MACP guidelines clearly establishes that all promotions from Mistries to JE (erstwhile 1400-2300) has to be ignored for the purpose of MACP. The OA is, therefore, allowed and respondents are directed to restore the first and second MACP with GP of Rs.4600 and 4800 from respective dates to the applicants.”
As evident from the order dated 01.09.2016, the mandate of this Tribunal was to restore 1st and 2nd MACP in GP 4600/- and GP 4800/- respectively from the respective dates to the applicant.
Admittedly, the respondents have restored 1st MACP of the applicant in GP 4600/- and 2nd MACP in GP 4800/- from the respective dates and the said resoration is not disputed by the applicant’s counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant presses for direction to the respondents to consider the applicant’s case for grant of 3rd MACP benefit in GP 5600/-.
Fact of the matter that the order dated 01.09.2016 passed by this Tribunal in O.A./1386/2013 was to the limited extent to restore the 1st and 2nd MACP in GP 4600/- and GP 4800/- from the respective dates to the applicant. The same has been duly complied with by the respondents and is not disputed by the applicant’s counsel. In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 613: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 70. Their Lordships in paragraph 6 held as under:-
“ 6. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against the 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 the 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.” [emphasis supplied]”
We have considered the matter. The respondents have considered the claim of the applicant and mandate of order dated 01.09.2016 has been duly complied with and there is no willful disobedience of the aforementioned order of this Tribunal. The present CP lacks merit no interference is called for.
For the reasons stated therein and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 613: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 70., we do not find any merit in the present CP.
In view whereof, present C.P. stands closed and rule nisi discharged with liberty to the applicant to approach afresh, if occasion so arises, in accordance with law.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.