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
10 paragraphs · 170 wordsL. Narasimha Reddy, J
(Through Video Conferencing)
This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents did not implement the directions issued by this Tribunal in its order dated 05.03.2020 in OA
No.4700/2014. The direction in the OA was twofold; namely, to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as and when the post of Supervisor
Grade-II is advertised and the 2nd was to consider the payment of enhanced emoluments.
Today, we heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The only grievance of the applicants is that though the applicants made a representation for enhancement of wages, it is not considered. However,
during the pendency of the contempt case, the respondents passed an order dated 23.06.2021 rejecting the claim. If the applicants feel aggrieved by
that, they have to work out the remedies separately.
This contempt petition is closed leaving it open to the applicants to work out their remedies in accordance with law.