AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH-VII, MEMBER – J
Heard Ms. Saumya Mandhyan learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that in compliance of direction given in the OA, applicant’s services were regularized and he has been given entire benefit. Applicant has also been treated in the old pension scheme. PPO has also been issued, settlement dues has also been paid. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the respondents refers to the facts disclosed in the compliance affidavit and argued to close the proceedings of the contempt petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the contents of objection, argued that direction given in the OA has also not been complied with in letter and spirit. Respondents states that applicant has been regularized at par with one Shri Tej Ali but salary and other benefit granted to the Shri Tej Ali have not been granted to the applicant nor the amount has been actually disbursed. Thus, argued to summon the competent authority amongst the respondents to explain the facts.
We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record.
OA was decided with the following observations:-
“Respondents are directed to make available necessary forms to the applicants for processing their case for due regularization and for this purpose, notwithstanding the fact that there is certain age limit and some of the applicants light have crossed the age limit now, their cases should be considered setting the clock back. For, the non-regularization is not on the ground of any mistake on the part of the applicants but the respondents are to be blamed for this kind of situation. It is settled law that the respondents can not take advantage of their own mistakes, vide Rekha Mukherjee V. Ashis Kumar Das (2005) 3 SCC 427 wherein the Apex Court has held, “The respondents herein can not take advantage of their own mistake”.
It appears that order passed in the OA was challenged through writ petition, which was also dismissed. Thereafter petitioner filed contempt petition before the Hon’ble High Court but it was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Tribunal in view of section 14 of the Limitation Act. Delay in filing the contempt petition has also been condoned.
Perusal of compliance affidavit reveals that although regularisation of the petitioner has been done w.e.f. 08.11.2004 but salary at par with Shri Tej Ali have not been paid. It is not clear from the compliance affidavit as to whether entire outstanding dues have actually been paid to the applicant or not. Applicant has been treated under the old pension scheme but PPO has not been issued taking into account the salary withdrawn by one Shri Tej Ali.
Thus, on close scrutiny of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that direction given in the OA has not been complied with in letter and spirit. If such is the position, respondents are hereby directed to file a better compliance affidavit complying with the direction given in the OA in letter and spirit disclosing the fact regarding actual payment to the petitioner made by the respondents.
List this case on 05.11.2024.
It is made clear that if by the date fixed in the matter, compliance affidavit is not filed, authority concerned will appear in person/through video conferencing to explain the facts.