CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2019) 01 CAT CK 0108

Dr. M.R. Diwan vs C.K. Mishra Through And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 18 January 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Pardeep Kumar, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Petition No. 28 Of 2019, Original Application No. 1645 Of 2017
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 403 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant filed OA No.1645/2017 feeling aggrieved by certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The said OA was allowed through order dated 05.04.2018. The disciplinary proceedings were treated as having elapsed, and directions were issued to pay all the terminal benefits to the applicant. This contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents did not comply with the directions issued by this Tribunal in the OA.

2.

The contempt petition is argued by the applicant in person. He contends that though much time has elapsed since the OA was allowed, the respondents have not released any benefits to him.

3.

Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents obtained instructions from the respondents. He contends that the respondents filed W.P. (C) No.5653/2018 challenging the order in OA No.1645/2017, and through an order dated 25.05.2018, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the judgment in the aforesaid OA.

4.

The applicant contends that though the High Court granted stay on 25.05.2018, it lapsed after six months in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal Nos.1375-1376/2013 decided on 25.04.2018).

5.

The basic facts are not in dispute. The order in this OA was stayed by the High Court. From the perusal of the portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, it is evident that the stay granted by the High Court would lapse after six months, unless it is extended through a speaking order. The applicant did not state that no speaking order has been passed by the High Court before expiry of six months, nor is it his case that no developments have taken place in the writ petition. As of now, the order passed by the High Court on 25.05.2018 needs to be taken to be in force unless it has been specifically vacated or it is declared by the High Court itself that the order lapsed on expiry of six months, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6.

Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the CP. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open to the applicant to pursue the remedies depending upon the developments in the writ petition pending in the High Court, be it at the interlocutory or final stages. There shall be no order as to costs.