AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member A
This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging the non-compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 24.06.2004 (Annexure C/7) passed in O.A. No. 200/835/2001.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that by way of orders dated 24.06.2004 in O.A./835/2001 and O.A./461/2002 in which orders, Annexure C/7 & C/8 were passed by this Tribunal. Thereafter, respondents filed WP No. 10785/2004 and 10787/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court in which common order dated 06.02.2017 (Annexure C/1) was passed in which it was clearly stated that
“we find no case is made out for interfering in W.P No. 10785/2004. We uphold the order passed by the Tribunal and direct for granting regular post in Group D cadre to the respondent/employee - Hargovind Singh with effect from the date the order was passed by this Tribunal on 24.06.2004 with all consequential benefits.”
The applicant was considered accordingly. But the fact remains that petitioner is entitled to regularisation w.e.f. 23.03.1988 in Group “D” as per examination dated 08.03.1987 with all consequential benefits. Though, the appointment of the applicant to the post of Mailman is considered, but it has been considered from 24.06.2004 rather than being considered w.e.f. 23.03.1988. He also submitted that he is not an appointee after 01.01.2004 as this Bench has quashed the order of removal and held the petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits. He should not be governed under NPS. He is entitled to benefit of MACP 1 after completion of 10 years i.e. w.e.f. 1998 and not from 29.06.2014.
The counsel for the respondents submitted that after receiving the order of this Tribunal, the respondents proceeded accordingly. They submitted that they have complied with the order of this Tribunal passed in O.A./835/2001 dated 24.06.2004 which read as under:
“17. This Original Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.04.2000 is quashed and set aside. The applicant will be entitled for all consequential benefits. With regard to recovery, if any amount is recovered from the applicant, the same be refunded to him immediately. No order as to costs.”
They submitted that they have fully complied with the order of this Tribunal and the applicant was considered for regularisation from 24.06.2004 as it is clearly mentioned in Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s order dated 06.02.2017 while deciding the two W.P.s no. 10785/2004 & 10787/2004. There is no specific direction that the applicant should be regularised w.e.f. 23.03.1988 which he is demanding. The respondents further submitted that we have complied with the order as per the directions given and as such no contempt is made out. Regarding applicant’s contention that he should be considered under old pension scheme, the order of CAT, Chandigarh Bench passed in O.A./063/581/2018 dated 29.11.2019 clearly states that “GDS service cannot be counted along with service rendered by applicant as Group ‘D’/(MTS) for treating him as employee under the Old Pension Scheme.”
This Tribunal has considered the matter and perused the pleadings and documents annexed herewith. The judgments relied upon during the course of hearing are also taken into consideration.
It is settled principle that “rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings” [Union of India and others vs Subedar Devassy PV, AIR 2006 SC 909]. It is clear that the rival contentions of the two parties involve an interpretation of the order of this Tribunal as well as the correctness of the orders passed by the respondents in compliance of these orders. In a contempt case, we cannot decide about the correctness of the interpretation put forward by the respondents or petitioners. A similar issue was examined by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Indian Airports Employees Union vs Ranjan Chatterjee and another, AIR 1999 SC 880 and it was held that such a question if raised has to be decided in appropriate proceedings and not in contempt case. The respondents have passed orders in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal and cannot be said to have committed wilful disobedience of the orders of this Tribunal.
Accordingly, we do not find any discrepancy regarding the compliance of the order of this Tribunal. We find that no wilful disobedience of the order of this Tribunal is made and accordingly no contempt has been made out.
Resultantly, this Contempt Petition is dismissed and contemnors are discharged from the notice of contempt.