Kalyani Chattarjee vs Dr. Pramod Kumar, General Manager/ Work Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Phoolbagh, Kanpur- 208001

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Heard Shri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that O.A./456/2021 was decided on 09.07.2021 with specific direction to the respondents/ competent authority amongst the respondents to decide the representations of the applicant dated 11.05.2019 and 08.04.2021 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. It was further argued that although the process for issuing the PPO has been started at the end of the respondents but no final PPO has been issued in this matter. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the Annexure No.3 of the compliance affidavit and further argued that there is a willful disobedience of the directions of this Tribunal, thus, the competent authority amongst the respondents be summoned to fix the charges.

Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to Annexure No.3 of the Compliance Affidavit dated 07.12.2023, argued that a letter has been sent to the competent authority for issuing the PPO in favour of the applicant. Thus, there is no willful disobedience of the direction of this Tribunal. It was further argued that the proceedings of the present Contempt Petition be closed since the PPO shall soon be issued by the competent authority in favour of the applicant.

We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record.

The relevant portion of the letter dated 09.10.2023 is as under:

“ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as elucidated above, it is stated that the family pension would be released to the applicant, as and when, the Pension Payment Order (PPO) is issued provided all documents are found in order, as stipulated in the rules.”

If the contents of the aforesaid order is taken into consideration, it is clear that the process of issuing the PPO has been started at the end of the respondents. In O.A./456/2021, there was only a direction to the respondents to decide the representations of the applicant. If a letter has been issued to the competent authority for issuing the PPO, it shall be deemed that substantial compliance has been made of the directions of this Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that the proceedings in the present Contempt Petition are liable to be closed. Thus, proceedings of the present Contempt Petition are closed and the notices stand discharged. All the associated M.A.s also stand disposed of.