Smt. Mangesh Lata vs Ajay Singh Chauhan & Anr.

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Rishav Kumar holding brief of Shri Sharad Chand Rai, learned counsel for the applicant.

Present contempt petition registered as Diary No.6069/2026 has been filed under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in Original Application No.325/2020 by which the said OA was allowed with the following directions: -

Since there is a delay in filing the aforesaid contempt petition, the applicant has also filed Misc. Application No.4744/2026 seeking condonation of delay.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the aforesaid direction passed in Original Application No.325/2020, the respondents have not complied with the same and have failed to consider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the contempt petition was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to the applicant’s medical condition, financial hardship and the assurances allegedly given by the departmental authorities regarding compliance. He, therefore, submits that the delay may kindly be condoned and the contempt petition may be considered on merits.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes a period of one year for initiation of contempt proceedings from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The provision reads as under: -

In the present case, the order dated 12.04.2023 required the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment in the next meeting after obtaining all relevant documents from her. The applicant herself has stated that the cause of action for contempt arose on 13.04.2024. Even reckoning the period of limitation from the said date, the present contempt petition, filed in the year 2026, is clearly beyond the period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

It is also evident from the record that Writ-A No.1644 of 2024, Km. Garima Kushwaha Vs. Union of India & Others, was filed by respondent No.4 before the High Court challenging the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Tribunal. The High Court passed an order dated 01.03.2024 in the said writ petition. However, the pendency or disposal of the said writ proceedings does not extend the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of contempt proceedings by the present applicant.

The applicant has sought to explain the delay on the grounds of the assurances allegedly given by the departmental authorities, her medical condition, financial difficulties and other circumstances. We have considered the grounds so pleaded. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reasons so assigned do not constitute sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The mere expectation of compliance on the basis of the alleged assurances cannot, by itself, extend the statutory period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the present contempt petition. Accordingly, MA No.4744/2026 seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the present contempt petition, being barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is dismissed as time-barred.

All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.