AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member(J):-
Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.
This instant contempt petition under section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 02.09.2025 passed in O.A. No.182 of 2021 , whereby the following direction has been issued:
7.Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the service rendered by the applicant’s father as Bearer from 13.09.1984 to 26.03.1991 towards his qualifying service and to extend all consequential benefits, including revision of retiral dues, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All associated M.As are disposed of.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a compliance affidavit has been filed. As stated therein, Late Shri Chandresh Kumar Dwivedi joined the non-statutory departmental canteen as a Bearer on 13.09.1984 in the pay scale of Rs. 196-3-220-EB-3-232, with an initial basic pay of Rs. 196/-. Subsequently, upon implementation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations, his pay was revised to Rs. 786/-. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Sepoy on 26.03.1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 775-12-871-EB-14-1025, with an initial basic pay of Rs. 775/-. Learned counsel further submits that, after taking into account the aforesaid past service, the admissible payments and consequential benefits have been calculated. The relevant calculation statement has been placed on record as Annexure CA-2 at pages 19–21 of the compliance affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute the revision made by the respondents. However, he seeks time to file objections as to whether the order passed by the respondents is in accordance with the applicable rules.
Considering the limited jurisdiction of this Tribunal in contempt proceedings and upon perusal of the compliance affidavit, we are of the opinion that substantial compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal has been made. If the applicant is aggrieved by the manner of implementation or calculation of consequential benefits, it is open to him to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar & Others, (1996) 6 SCC 291. Accordingly, no further proceedings are warranted in the matter.
In view of the above, the contempt proceedings in C.P. No. 130 of 2026 stand dropped. The notices issued therein stand discharged.
All pending M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of.