AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As Per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member Judicial
Heard the parties.
By way of the present CP, the applicant is alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in OA No 912/2022, whereby direction was issued to amend the seniority list dated 12.06.2020 and assign 1st position instead of 13th to the applicant as per DoP&T OMs dated 06.06.1978 and 09.08.1995 and complete the said exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order dated 02.09.2024.
The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submits that the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in OA No 912/2022 has been duly complied with by the respondents vide office order dated 25.10.2026, whereby seniority to the applicant at first position instead of 13th has been assigned and nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present CP.
The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that in compliance order dated 25.10.2026, the respondents have themselves mentioned that consequential benefits, if any, will be considered separately as per the revised seniority list, by a fresh order. Hence, the consequential benefits have not been granted yet.
Heard. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
The short issue regarding that arises for our consideration is as to “whether there is willful disobedience of order dated 02.09.2024 passed in OA No 912/2022.
In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties, relevant para 10 of the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No 912/2022 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“10.Therefore, we allow this O.A. and direct the respondents to amend the seniority list dated 12.06.2020 and assign 1st position instead of 13th to the applicant as per the DoP&T OM No. 9/23/71-Estt.(D) dated 06.06.1978 and DoP&T OM No. 35015/2/93-Estt.(D) dated 09.08.1995. This exercise will have to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.”
As evident from order dated 02.09.2024, respondents were directed to amend the seniority list dated 12.06.2020 and assign 1st position instead of 13th to the applicant. The respondents have issued office order dated 25.10.2026 and amended the seniority list dated 12.06.2020 and have assigned 1st position instead of 13th to the applicant in light of order dated 02.09.2024 passed in OA No 912/2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant presses for direction to respondents to grant consequential benefits, pursuant to order dated 25.10.2026 passed in compliance of order dated 02.09.2024 in OA No 912/2022.
The fact of the matter that the applicant filed OA No 912/2022 being aggrieved by seniority list dated 12.06.2020, assigned him seniority No. 13 in batch of 20 instead of first position on the basis of DoPT OMs dated 06.06.1978 and 09.08.1995 based on merit obtained in All India Competitive Exam, without reference to the date of joining.
As we have already extracted the relevant para 10 of order dated 02.09.2024 passed in this OA No. 912/2022, It is as clear as noon day that mandate of order dated 02.09.2024 was to amend the seniority list dated 12.06.2020 and assign the applicant 1st position instead of 13th position as per OMs dated 06.06.1998 and 09.08.1995. The said mandate has been complied with vide compliance order dated 25.10.2026.
Admittedly, the applicant's seniority list has been revised of Uttarakhand AAD/DA cadre dated 12.6.2020. The applicant has been assigned the 1st position instead of 13th and respondents have also issued revised seniority list dated 25.10.2026, annexed with office order dated 25.10.2026, issued in compliance of Tribunal's order dated 02.09.2024.
Learned Counsel for applicant fairly submits that revised seniority list dated 25.10.2026 has been issued and order dated 02.09.2024 has been complied with but applicant is entitled for consequential benefits and seeking adjudication for consequential benefits as result of revised seniority list dated 25.10.2026.
In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 613: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 70. Their Lordships in paragraph 6 held as under:-
“6.If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against the rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. ” [emphasis supplied
We have considered the matter. The respondents have considered the claim of the applicant and mandate of order dated 02.09.2024 has been duly complied with and there is no willful disobedience of the aforementioned order of this Tribunal. The present CP lacks merit no interference is called for.
For the reasons stated therein and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 613: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 70., we do not find any merit in the present CP.
In view whereof, present C.P. stands closed and rule nisi discharged with liberty to the applicant to approach afresh, if occasion so arises, in accordance with law.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.