Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2022) 02 CAT CK 0362

Smt. Saroja Devi vs Shri Rajesh Pandey

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad · Decided on 15 February 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) · Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
CASE NUMBER
Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.330/00024/2020 In Original Application No. 330/1339 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 398 words

O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)

We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.

2.

Shri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is present and Shri P.K. Rai, Government counsel puts in appearance for the respondents.

3.

The instant contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal on 21.9.2021 in OA No. 1339/2014. In the said OA, the applicant had sought the relief of appointment on compassionate grounds and while deciding the OA, this Tribunal had passed the following order:-

“11.

In view of the definition of ‘Family’ that “married daughters of any age and widowed daughters provided they are wholly dependent on the employee” in the Pass Rules of the respondents, the applicant may file a fresh representation to the respondents to support her case that she was dependent to the deceased employee (father of the applicant at the time of the death of the employee). The respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the applicant, if file, in the light of the supporting documents and in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment (supra) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order”.

4.

It is obvious that the directions of the Tribunal were restricted to the competent authority of the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant by way of passing a reasoned and speaking order.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the respondents have decided the representation by way of a detailed order, they have not taken into consideration the observations made by the Tribunal while issuing such directions, specifically the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been mentioned in para 10 of the judgment.

6.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the documents on record. The order passed by the competent authority on the representation of the applicant is a detailed order and we would surely define it as a reasoned and speaking order. We do not find any infirmity in this order and according to us the directions issued by this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA stand complied with. Therefore, this contempt petition stands dismissed at admission stage itself.