CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

CS Kataria vs TP Singh And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 21 January 2020 · Citation: (2020) 01 CAT CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · A. K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 57 Of 2019, Original Application No. 657 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 422 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant filed OA No. 657/2018, challenging the order dated 28.12.2017 which, in turn, was passed in compliance with the directions issued in an earlier OA. The matter was pertaining to his posting in the Railways. The OA was allowed and the impugned order therein was set aside. The respondents were directed to get a comprehensive medical examination done and taking into account its outcome, and factoring in his medical history as well as the issue of passenger safety, and to decide the plea of his being given a light assignment at a place which has necessary medical facilities.

2.

This Contempt Petition is filed, alleging that the respondents have not complied with the directions issued by this Tribunal.

3.

On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that with a view to comply with the directions issued by this Tribunal in the OA, the applicant was required to report to office of Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer/Delhi(P-1), DRM Office, New Delhi, for his comprehensive medical examination, but he did not turn up. Reference is made to a letter dated 04.04.2019 issued in this behalf.

4.

The applicant, on the other hand, contends that when he attended the office of DRM, he was required to appear before the Psychiatrist, OPD, for fitness from that angle, and that he has undergone treatment accordingly.

5.

We heard Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shailender Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

6.

There is some dispute as to what happened after the OA was disposed of. The respondents did issue a letter dated 04.04.2019, requiring the applicant to attend their office in the context of subjecting him to medical test. It is also stated that the applicant was referred on 28.08.2019 to the Psychiatrist, OPD, but he did not report. The applicant, on the other hand, states that he reported to the OPD Psychiatrist, and the treatment was also given to him.

7.

In light of these developments, we close the Contempt Petition by directing the Chief Medical Superintendent to take note of the treatment, if any, undergone by the applicant, by this time and to certify his existing medical conditions. Depending upon the certification so made, the further steps shall be taken to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks.

8.

To avoid further complication, we direct that the applicant shall report to the Chief Medical Officer on 28 th of this month.