AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J
The present Contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order of this Tribunal dated 17th October, 2017 passed in Original Application No. 770 of 2012. The operative portion of the order reads as under:-
“13.Since this Tribunal is of the considered view that the impugned voluntary retirement order dated 6.1.2011 is illegal and liable to be quashed, the same is accordingly quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to treat the applicant as deemed to be in service till his superannuation by creating the supernumerary post. The applicant is also entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, fixation of pension and retiral dues and the difference of the same, which has already been paid to the applicant in furtherance of voluntary retirement, may be deducted from the emoluments of the applicant now to be calculated by the respondents pursuant to quashing of the impugned order. The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The present O.A. is allowed in terms of the directions given in para 13 above. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Against the order of this Tribunal, the respondents filed Writ petition bearing Writ-A No. 4199 of 2018, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 2.2.2018 by affirming the order of this Tribunal. After dismissal of Writ petition, the respondents have filed compliance affidavit wherein they have stated that pursuant to order of this Tribunal, the applicant has already been treated to be in service by extending all the benefits till his superannuation i.e. July, 2017. The pay of the applicant has also been revised and all settlement dues on the basis of last pay drawn has already been paid to the applicant. Pension Payment Order (PPO) has also been issued in favour of the applicant on the basis of last pay drawn. Thus, the respondents have submitted that the directions of this Tribunal has been fully complied with in its letter and spirit and nothing remains to be payable to the applicant and as such the present Contempt petition be closed and notices issued to the respondents may be discharged.
Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the applicant nor there is any application seeking adjournment of the case nor a request has been made to adjourn the case. In absence thereof, we have no other option, but to decide the instant Contempt petition after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of pleadings available on record by invoking Rule 16(1) of CAT Procedure Rules, 1987.
From the pleadings of the case, it would reveal that the judgment and order of this Tribunal has been substantially complied with and if the applicant is still aggrieved, then he may approach the original side by filing a case before the appropriate judicial forum.
In the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar reported in 1996 Legal Eagle (SC) 1385 and also in the case of Prithavi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2004 SC 4277 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court dealing with application for contempt of court cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhote Ram Vs. Urvarshi Gulati & Another reported in AIR 2001 SC 3468 has observed as under:-
“Court directed for considering the case of the applicant for promotion. The case of the petitioner was duly considered, but his claim for promotion was rejected and in that even since the case of the applicant was considered as such, the contempt proceedings cannot be proceeded as there is no violation of any direction issued by the Court.”
In view of the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, we find that the respondents/contemnors have not acted in a manner which can be deemed to be a willful disobedience of the judgment and order of this Tribunal dated 17th October, 2017 passed in Original Application No. 770 of 2012. The substantial compliance of the direction of the Tribunal has been carried out by the respondents.
In view of the above, the CCP fails and accordingly the contempt proceedings are closed.