Omprakash Trivedi vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others

This petition has been filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 31.01.2012 in Civil Contempt Petition No. 36/2010. Earlier, the petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in regard to counting his past services rendered in Education Department. It was registered as O.A. No. 304/2001. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2003 allowed the application and passed the following order:

In the premises the original applicant has much force and merits acceptance. The impugned order dated 04.08.2000 (Annexure A/23) is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are directed to count the past service of the applicant rendered in Education Department of Madhya Pradesh during the period from 09/12/1959 to 07/03/1980 for the purpose of qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits and allow all consequential benefits. The applicant shall be entitled to the interest on the amount of difference which would become payable as a result of this order as admissible to the General Provident Fund from time to time. This direction shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Against the aforesaid order, a writ petition was filed before this Court that was dismissed. Thereafter, SLP was filed that was also dismissed. Then, a contempt petition was filed before the Tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the contempt petition by observing that the order passed by the Tribunal has been complied with. The tribunal passed the following order on 29.07.2009 in Civil Contempt Petition No. 10/09:

On examination of the matter with reference to the document placed on record we are satisfied that direction issued by this Tribunal as upheld by Hon''ble High Court have been fully complied with by the respondents by making necessary payments. In this view of the matter, The CCP does not survive and the same is dismissed. It goes without saying that in case petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the respondents, he will be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with rules and law. Notices are discharged. No costs.

When the petitioner again filed another contempt petition on the ground that due to misconception the earlier contempt petition was dismissed, however, the directions issued by the tribunal in earlier application were not fully complied with. That was dismissed by the tribunal vide order Annexure P-5 which is under challenge.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been paid the amount of leave encashment of 125 days to which he is eligible after counting past services rendered by the petitioner in the earlier education department. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also not been paid the interest on the arrears of pensionary benefits.

In regard to payment of interest of arrears of pensionary benefits, in our opinion, there is no order passed by the tribunal earlier in this regard, hence, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable.

In regard to payment of amount of 125 days'' leave encashment, in our opinion, the petitioner is eligible to receive the aforesaid amount because earlier, the tribunal had directed the respondents to count the past services rendered by the petitioner from 09.12.59 to 07.03.1980 for the purposes of qualifying services for grant of pensionary benefits and after counting these services the petitioner is eligible to get maximum amount of leave encashment of 300 days. The respondents have not submitted any details that whether the petitioner had earlier encashed the leave or the leave was not due to the petitioner of 300 days. It is only mentioned by the respondents in the reply that an amount of Rs. 78,138/- towards encashment of 175 days'' earned leave has been paid to the petitioner. The aforesaid leave encashment was on account services rendered by the petitioner in the Sangathan, however, as per the earlier order of the tribunal the petitioner is eligible to receive the pensionary benefits after counting the whole period of services including the earlier services rendered by him in the education department. Hence, in our opinion, the petitioner is eligible to receive the amount of leave encashment of 125 days'' earned leave.

In our opinion, the dismissal of earlier contempt petition would not come in the way of maintainability of second petition because in the aforesaid petition the question in regard to eligibility of the petitioner to receive the amount of earned leave had not been considered. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall pay the amount of leave encashment of 125 days'' earned leave within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Annexure P-5, is modified. No order as to costs.