CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Munna Singh vs Devendra Singh, Garrison Engineer (GE), (West), Allahabad & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 16 March 2022 · Citation: (2022) 03 CAT CK 0014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) · Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 330, 82 Of 2021 In Original Application No. 330, 488 Of 2021
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

6 paragraphs · 417 words

Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)

1.

Heard Shri M.K. Updhayay assisted by Ms. Amrita Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma holding brief of Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 488/2021. While, disposing of the aforesaid OA, this Tribunal has passed the following orders:-

“4. Since the applicant has already made a representation in this regard to the respondents, it would be appropriate to dispose of this OA at this initial stage with a direction to the respondents specifically to the respondent No. 5 to dispose of the issue of payment of pension to the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further a direction is issued to the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 that they shall effectively pursue this matter with respondent No. 5 for the release of pension expeditiously and they shall also be jointly liable for ensuring the implementation of this direction.”

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance with the direction of this Tribunal, the respondents had taken effective steps to pursue the matter with the concerned bank so that the pension of the applicant can be released. He submits that it was discovered that the bank was unable to release the pension of the applicant on the ground that the applicant had not furnished the necessary life certificate to the bank which is a precondition for the release of the pension. He further informs that the applicant instead of furnishing the life certificate to the concerned bank had furnished the same in the office of the respondents. He submits that the respondents have since passed on the same to the concerned bank. He draws attention toward the affidavit of compliance he has filed, which is on record, wherein this position has been made abundantly clear.

4.

The direction passed by us in the aforesaid OA was limited that the respondents should assist the applicant in pursuing the matter with the concerned bank. The documents on record show they have pursued it honestly. We also observe that the primary onus is on the applicant to complete the necessarily formalities and submit the documents to the concerned bank. Since, the same has been done now, nothing sustains in the present contempt petition, which is accordingly closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.