Nihal Singh vs M.M. Kutty And Ors

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience  of  the  order  passed  by  the  Tribunal  in  Original Application (OA) bearing No.249/2015 on 29.03.2017 (Annexure CP-1). The order reads as under:-

"2. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in WPC No. 1629/2010 in Lalit Kumar Vimal Vs. Secretary (Health) & Ors., in which the similar matter was considered by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has held as under :-

"38. We dispose of the writ petitions and the LPA as under:-

(1) WP(C) No.1629/2010 filed by Lalit Kumar Vimal is allowed with a direction to the Government of NCT Delhi to forthwith regularize him as OT Technician and since he has been working in a government hospital since November 2002 as an OT Technician on ad-hoc basis we direct that he would be entitled to the benefit of seniority with retrospective effect as per his seniority position in the select panel and noting that he has not been granted annual increments we direct that he would be granted annual increments from the deemed date of regular appointment which would be the date when the person immediately junior to him in the select panel was appointed. Arrears would be paid to him within 6 months from today.

(2) WP(C) No.18037/2006 filed by Sanjay Kumar is allowed with a direction to the Government of NCT Delhi to regularize his services as a Medical Laboratory Technician with effect from August 2003, the month in which he joined after he was selected. He would be entitled to seniority at par with Lalit Kumar Vimal and noting that he has been getting the benefit of the annual increments, we observe that he would not be entitled to any arrears.

(3) As regards petitioner No.3 of WP(C) No.5396-98/2005 and the appellants of LPA No.1653-58/2005 we direct that they be granted employment as Medical Laboratory Technicians and for purposes of seniority be placed as per their position in the select panel. They would not be entitled to any back-wages, save and except appellant No.3 who has been working at DDU Hospital and qua him we direct that he would be entitled to the same benefit as Lalit Kumar Vimal. Arrears would be paid to him within six months. Others would be issued formal posting orders within six weeks."

In any case, since it was not the applicant's fault that the department took six years to decide whether he possesses the necessary educational qualification or not, the O.A deserves to be allowed.

The O.A is therefore, allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant him seniority along with his batch mates from 2003 with all consequential benefits. No costs".

The facts, in brief, are that petitioner is seeking benefit with effect from 2003 with all consequential benefits. He has submitted that the respondents have partially complied with the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by this Tribunal granting seniority to him vide order dated 29.05.2017. Further, he has submitted that respondents have not granted him consequential benefits which would obviously include grant of notional increments and consequently, his pay fixation in pursuance thereof w.e.f. 2003.

He has further stated that since this Tribunal has allowed the OA with all consequential benefits, so he should be paid all the benefits like increments etc. from 2003. By not doing so, they have wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Tribunal and action be taken against them under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and CP be allowed.

The respondents have filed their counter denying all the allegations and submitted that they have complied with the order by passing speaking order dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure R-5). In the said order, it has been held as under:-

"4. Further, with regard to all consequential benefits, the Hon'ble CAT in its order dated 29.03.2017 has given reference of order dated 29.11.2010 of Hon'ble High Court in WPC No.1629/2010 titled Lalit Kumar Vimal Vs. GNCTD in which the Hon'ble Court has ordered that '(1) WP(C) No.1629/2010 filed by Lalit Kumar Vimal is allowed with a direction to the Government of NCT Delhi to forthwith regularize him as OT Technician and since he has been working in a government hospital since November 2002 as an OT Technician on ad-hoc basis we direct that he would be entitled to the benefit of seniority with retrospective effect as per his seniority position in the select panel and noting that he has not been granted annual increments we direct that he would be granted annual increments from the deemed date of regular appointment which would be the date when the person immediately junior to him in the select panel was appointed. Arrears would be paid to him within 6 months from today". The Hon'ble High Court has granted benefit of seniority with retrospective effect as per seniority position in the select panel and also granted annual increments from the deemed dated of regular appointment only to petitioner No.3 of WPC No.5396-98/2005 and appellants of LPA No.1653-58/2015.

However, the Hon'ble CAT vide its order dated 29.03.2017 in respect of Shri Nihal Singh, has not specifically order to grant him notional increment or re-fixation of his pay w.e.f. 2003, hence, the claim of Shri Nihal Singh, Technician (OT/CSSD) for grant of notional increments ad pay fixation w.e.f. 2003 cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, the representation of Shri Nihal Singh, OT Technician has been filed for future reference".

They have further submitted that Hon'ble High Court has granted benefit of seniority with retrospective effect as per seniority position in the select panel and also granted annual increments from the deemed date of regular appointment only to the petitioner No.3 of WPC No.5396-98/2005 and appellants of LPA No.1653-58/2015. Further, only Shri Lalit Kumar Vimal and Shri Ram Parvesh Roy were covered in the said directions as they were working in a Government Hospital on ad hoc/contract basis. Hence the claim of the petitioner, Technician (OT/CSSD) for grant of seniority on the basis of the selection panel of recruitment year 2003 cannot be acceded to as the said benefit has been specifically granted to the concerned petitioners. They have further submitted that as petitioner was not working in any Govt. Hospital/Medical Institution on contract/ad hoc basis, hence he is not similarly situated as Lalit Kumar Vimal and cannot be granted notional increments and pay fixation w.e.f. 2003. Thus, they have submitted that the CP be dismissed as respondents have not committed any contempt.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

We may mention that Tribunal has considered all the pleas raised by the petitioner and gave a direction to the respondents to grant him seniority along with his batch mates from 2003 with all consequential benefits. Thereafter he gave a representation which was considered by the respondents and given seniority but not entitled to consequential benefits. Since Shri Lalit Kumar Vilal was working in a Government Hospital from 2002 hence he was allowed consequential benefits by the High Court. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for consequential benefits, as prayed for.

In a Contempt Petition, we have only to see whether the directions issued by the court have been complied with or not and since respondents have complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal, we do not find that the respondents have committed any contempt. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao (2000) 10 SCC 285 has held that "once the Court direction to consider the employee's representation was complied with and his representation was rejected on merits, contempt petition would not be maintainable". It is trite law that contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and in very deserving cases only and not casually. Such a power is not intended to be exercised as a matter of course.

Thus, seen from any angle, no case for contempt is made out. Hence, CP is rejected. Notices are discharged.