AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant was promoted to the post of HS Welder in the Ordinance Factory on 01.03.2005 However, through an order dated 21.07.2012, the Management of the Ordinance Factory reversed him to the post of Skilled (Welder). He filed OA No.4033/2015 challenging the order of reversion. The principal ground urged therein was that the applicant was not put on notice. The OA was allowed on 11.12.2019 and the order of reversion was set aside. However, it was left open to the respondents to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, the respondents have issued a notice to the applicant on 02.01.2020 requiring him to explain as to why his promotion from the post of SK (Welder) to HS (Welder) w.e.f. 01.03.2005 not be cancelled. The applicant submitted his explanation. Taking the same into account, the respondents passed an order dated 12.02.2021 stating that the earlier order of reversion is reinstated. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents did not comply with the order in the OA, in its true letter and spirit.
Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents were under obligation to pass fresh orders, and instead they have reiterated the earlier order which was already set aside by this Tribunal.
Shri Piyush Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the basic infirmity in the earlier order of reversion was that no notice was issued, and in compliance with the order in the OA, notice was issued and fresh order was passed.
The order of reversion dated 21.07.2012 passed against the applicant was set aside by this Tribunal on the ground that it was not preceded by a notice, and an opportunity was given to the respondents to pass fresh orders, after issuing notice. Accordingly, the notice was issued and an order was passed. Normally, with that, the order in the OA stands complied with. The grievance expressed by the applicant in this CP is that in the concluding portion of the order dated 12.02.2021, the respondents have just reiterated the earlier order dated 21.07.2012.
We are of the view that it is a case of poor drafting. Various points urged by the applicant in his reply were discussed in detail and instead of stating that he deserves to be reverted, the respondents have observed that the order dated 21.07.2012 is reinstated.
We direct that the impugned order shall be construed and read as though the reversion is ordered with effect from the date of order. It shall be open to the applicant to pursue the remedies in accordance with law. The Contempt case is closed.