AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Heard Shri M. R. Gupta assisted by Shri Shivam Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant Contempt Petition, u/s 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 22.03.2025 passed in O.A. No. 417/2023, whereby the following directions were issued:-
“….8. In view of the above discussions, O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue the pension and other retiral benefits in favour of applicants, which have not been paid to them, except the applicant No. 2. This exercise will be completed within a period of four months. No cost. All the associated MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of..”
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order of this Tribunal has not yet been complied with.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of this Tribunal has already been complied with and a compliance affidavit has also been filed in this regard. In para 4-7 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under:
“4.That the respondents has already complied with the order dated 22/03/2025 of this Hon'ble tribunal and issued a memorandum dated 18/09/2025 in the aforesaid matter. The copy of the said memorandum dated 18/09/2025 being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. CA-1 to this compliance affidavit.
5.That pursuant of the memorandum dated 18/09/2025 FA&CAO issued PPO No. 20137041750006 dated 11.09.2026 in favour of Shri Roop Narain Prasad applicant no.1 and PPO No. 20137041750001 Ramdavan dated 11.09.2026 in favour of Shri applicant no.2. The photocopy of both PPO No. 20137041750006 dated 11.09.2026 in the name of Roop Narain Prasad and PPO No. 20137041750001 dated 11.09.2026 in the name of Ramdavan are being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. CA-2 & CA-3 to this compliance affidavit.
6.That the DCRG amounts of Rs. 2,47,968/- and Rs. 3,19,065/- have also been paid to Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2, respectively, vide C06 and C07 Nos. 04060926000466 and 04060926700018, dated 11.09.2026, and C06 and C07 Nos. 04060926000465 and 04060926700018, of dated the 10/11.09.2026, respectively. Copies aforesaid payment documents are being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. CA-4 and CA-5, respectively, to this Compliance Affidavit.
7.That in view of the facts as stated above, the authority concern has fully considered/complied with the direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal vide orders dated 22.03.2025.”
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed objection against the compliance affidavit. In para 5 of the said affidavit it is stated as under:
“5.That, in reply to para 7, of the compliance affidavit, it is stated that the opposite party has not completely complied with the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is admitted that PPO has been issued and gratuity amount has been paid but arrears of the pension has not been paid. Applicant No.1, completed the service of 27 years9 month and 20 days and retired on 31.01.2013. Applicant No.2 completed the service of 29 years 8 month and 20 days and retired on 31.12.2014 from the post of Khalasi helper, Mechanical Department and PPO was issued on 11.09.2026, and arears of pension has not been paid, Thus the opposite party has not completely complied the order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal. It is further stated that the opposite party has paid the arrears of pension to Applicant 1,2 & 4 of the Original Application.”
From the perusal of the record it is evident that the order of this Tribunal has already been complied with as the respondents have issued PPO and have also paid DCRG amount to the applicants, which has also been admitted by the applicants in para 5 of their objection. It is also evident that pension start date is clearly mentioned in the PPO.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the instant Contempt Petition stand closed and consigned to record. Notices issued to the respondents have been discharged. However, the applicants are at liberty to approach this Tribunal through appropriate proceedings, if they are aggrieved by any aspect of the compliance or the actions of the Respondents.
M.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.