AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the proposed contemnors and perused the records.
The relevant part of the judgment and order dated 04.03.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 224 of 2021 is extracted below:
“6.From the perusal of the aforesaid orders of Hon’ble High Court, it is manifest that respondents have given an undertaking before the Hon’ble High Court to reinstate and regularize the applicant with effect from 01.01.2001. Respondents/competent authority are bound to comply with the aforesaid orders of Hon’ble High Court dated 17.09.2014 and 13.07.2018.
7.In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that impugned order dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure A-1) and Pay Slip of January, 2021 (Annexure A-2) deserves to be quashed and quashed accordingly.
8.Respondents/competent authority are directed to comply the undertaking given by them before the Hon’ble High Court as mentioned in the order dated 17.09.2014 passed in MISC. SINGLE No. 2461 of 2009 and 13.07.2018 passed in MISC. SINGLE No. 2461 of 2009. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
In the instant Contempt Petition, the applicant contends that the judgment and order dated 04.03.2024 in OA No. 224 of 2021 has not been complied with by the proposed contemnors.
The proposed contemnors, vide M.P. No. 2737 of 2025 filed a compliance report stating that the applicant had already been regularized as Casual Labour on temporary status with effect from 01.01.2001 through memo dated 03.10.2018 and amount of Rs. 13,50,519/- was paid to him as arrears of wages. Further, the GPF and pensionary benefits had been granted to the applicant. In regard to benefits of financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, the proposed contemnors stated that the applicant was considered as Casual Labour on temporary status for the period from 01.01.2001 to 30.10.2018 and he was promoted on the post of MTS through DPC held on 03.11.2020 and as the regular appointment was granted to the applicant in the year 2020, the benefits of MACP are not admissible to him as per the instructions dated 22.10.2029 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). It was further stated by the proposed contemnors that the undertaking given before Hon’ble high Court has been fully complied with as the Contempt Petition No. 2341 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 2461 (MS) of 2009 was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court in full satisfaction vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2019.
An objection was filed by the applicant on 02.12.2024 stating that in OA No. 224 of 2021, the applicant had sought extension of benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and MACPS at par with his junior Ramesh Kumar, Group ‘D’, Safaiwala and that putting him on temporary status was in utter violation of the orders of Hon’ble High Court as well as of the order of this Tribunal.
The proposed contemnors, vide M.P. No. 3145 of 2025, averred that Hon’ble High Court nowhere ordered to regularize the applicant in parity with Ramesh, Safaiwala. It was stated that Accounts Enfacement for the applicant’s entitlement under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (old pension scheme) with effect from 01.04.2026 (i.e., after applicant’s retirement) had been issued and that this Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 04.03.2024 had been complied with in letter and spirit.
Another objection was filed by the applicant vide M.P. No. 3125 of 2025 reiterating the prayer for regularization at par with Ramesh Safaiwala and stating that the proposed contemnors were regularizing his service from 2011 instead of 2001 in order to keep him under the New Pension System (NPS).
The proposed contemnors, vide M.A. No. 2318 of 2026, have filed copy of the Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 20.05.2026 issued in the name of the applicant.
The applicant, vide M.A. No. 2356 of 2026, has reiterated his grievance of not having been regularized at par with Ramesh Safaiwala.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in regard to the subject matter of contempt in Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Ors vs P Ravi Kumar & Ors 2024 INSC 957:
“1.10In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable.” (emphasis supplied)
Admittedly, the proposed contemnors regularized the service of the applicant and paid him arrears from January, 2001 which was taken note of by Hon’ble High Court while dismissing the Contempt Petition No. 2341 of 2018 vide order dated 08.01.2019. It is observed that now the proposed contemnors have issued PPO to the applicant under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is noted that this Tribunal had not made any order for regularization of the applicant at par with Ramesh Safaiwala. In view of this position, we find no ground for sustaining this Contempt Petition.
In view of the foregoing, this Contempt Petition is closed.