AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Mrs. Jasmine Ahmed, Member (J)
OA 3103/2015 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 20.09.2016 with the following directions:
“3.Under such circumstances, it will be proper to direct the respondents to hold the DPC after collecting the Data within a specified time. Accordingly, respondents are directed to conduct a DPC after collecting the Data within a period of six months. OA disposed off accordingly. No costs.”
In the present Contempt Petition, the petitioners have complained that the respondents are guilty of willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s directions dated 20.09.2016, quoted above.
Pursuant to notice issued, the respondents have filed compliance affidavit stating therein that Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) meeting for promotion to the post of Wireman and Electrician has been held on 18.12.2017. It is further stated in the compliance affidavit that DSC could not be held for promotion to the post of Electric Motor Driver and Sr. Fitter as the recruitment rules for Electric Motor Driver do not have any provision for promotion from Electric Beldar whereas there is no such post of Senior Fitter in Corporation. However, they have been given financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Scheme as per their eligibility.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Yogesh Kumar Mahur strongly repelled the averment made in compliance affidavit that there is no provision in the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of Electric Motor Driver from Electric Beldar. In this regard, he drew our attention to Annexure CP-4 in order to show that initial recruitment was in the post of Beldar/Khallasi only. At serial number 12, composition of DPC is shown in respect of Class IV employees. Attention was also drawn to Office Order at Annexure CP-5, which contains names of some individuals holding the post of Beldar and their promotion to the post of Electric Motor Driver.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
While the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the directions of the Tribunal have been complied with, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that compliance claimed to have been done is not in true letter and spirit of the directions contained in the Tribunal’s order.
We have gone through the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents and we are of the considered opinion that substantial compliance of the Tribunal’s directions has been done. The C.P. is, therefore, closed. Notices discharged. If, however, the petitioners are not satisfied with the compliance done by the respondents, they are at liberty to seek remedy available in law.