Shiv Prasad & Others vs Arun Kumar Saxena, General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarters, Subedarganj, Allahabad 211013 & Others

B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)

This Contempt Petition has been moved for non-compliance of the order dated 09th October, 2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1221/2006. The aforesaid OA was decided along with OA No.1401/2006 and 602/2006. The applicant No.1 Shiv Prasad was applicant No.3 in OA No.1221/2006.

The Division Bench passed the order and directed in Para-17 and 18 as under:-

“17. In view of facts and circumstances of these O.As and legal position, we are of the considered view that the applicant/s have been discriminated against as the similarly situated employees were given these benefts. They also deserve to be given the similar benefts. Similar employees cannot be treated in a dissimilar manner. Therefore, it will be just and proper to grant similar benefts to the applicants in terms of designation and pay. The O.As. deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the O.A. Nos. 1401/06, 1221/06 and 602/06 are allowed. The respondents are directed to re-consider the grant of scales and designation to the applicants in accordance with rules and in the light of observations made by us hereinabove within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certifed copy of this order. ”

The compliance afdavit has been fled by the respondents along with the order passed by the Competent Authority on 16.05.2016. As per the respondents, substantive compliance has been made and upon the basis of the said compliance report, the contempt petition in other cases also has been dropped by the court. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to the same treatment and the contempt petition should be dismissed.

It is submitted by the applicants’ counsel that in the similar cases of granting pay scale to storeman working in the Engineering Department, the same respondents have been granted the appropriate pay scale of Rs.825-1250, and thereafter the grade Rs.3050-4500 but in the present case, they are discriminating the applicants and not extending the beneft of similar order delivered by the Principal Bench New Delhi in OA No.648/1999 (Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India) in which pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- was granted by the Railway Board to the Storeman. Learned counsel for the applicants also stated that the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- was granted to the several storemen in open line on railway working under DRM, North Central Railway, Allahabad but in the case of the applicant, it is being denied wilfully and on the misleading ground taken in the order dated 16.05.2016.

The counsel for respondents strongly opposed the contention of the applicants and draw attention towards the order passed by the Competent Authority as per the direction of the court.

It appears from the record that the same order was passed in all three OA Nos. 1401/2006, 1221/2006, and 602/2006. The applicant Shiv Prasad, who was applicant no.3 in OA No.1221/2006 fled this contempt petition. The respondents authority passed the combined compliance order/speaking order on 16.05.2016. A copy of the order is annexed at Page-17 to 21. Detailed combined order has been passed in all three cases. Because the same order was passed, for all three cases therefore, the view of the court is also required to be the same. It appears that the contempt petition No.73/2016 was also fled by the applicant P.K. Mittal, who was the applicant in OA No.602/2006. The aforesaid contempt petition was disposed of by this Tribunal on 19.10.2016. The same order dated 16.05.2016 was produced in compliance of the court’s order and the court come to the conclusion that substantive compliance has been made, therefore, the contempt proceedings were dropped. The court mentioned in para- 8 and 9 as under:-

“8. A general perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that while the order dated 09.10.2015 was passed, the respondents were left with option for reconsidering the matter. Since an option had been left open to the respondents by the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in accordance with rules, the respondents have taken action in pursuance of that part of the order as per their understanding and passed the order dated 16.05.2016. Hence, they cannot be said to have committed willful disobedience.

In the facts and circumstances, we feel that substantial compliance has been made by the respondents and no case of contempt is made out. Consequently, the contempt proceeding is dropped. If the applicants are aggrieved by any inadequacy/infrmity contained in the order dated 16.05.2016, they may challenge the same on original side. ”

Therefore, it appears that after considering the same order dated 16.05.2016, the contempt petition No.76/2016 has been dropped (in OA No.602/2006). Therefore, the respondents of this case are also entitled to the same benefts.

It transpires from the record that the order passed on 16.05.2016 is run up to 05 pages. An elaborate discussion has been made, therefore it can be said that the respondent applied his mind and took the appropriate decision. The court also mentioned in Para-8 and 9 (quoted above) that substantive compliance has been made by the respondents.

The counsel for the applicant also submitted that the application for review has been fled by the applicant in another case, but it appears that one application for recall the order has also been dismissed by this court recently.

Therefore, it can be said that sufcient compliance has been made in this case also. Looking to the order dated 19.10.2016 passed in Contempt Petition No.73/2016 arising out of OA No.602/2006, no diferent view can be taken by this court.

Therefore, in view of this court, substantive compliance has been made hence, no further proceedings are required. Therefore, contempt proceedings are dropped and the respondents are discharged from their liabilities.