Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dinesh Chandra Tripathi vs Satish Kumar on 14 November, 2017
Reserved (On 08.11.2017) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD ENCH, ALLAHABAD (This the -
4-l""- Day of Nove mber, 2017) H ~on'b le Mr. Ju· tice Dines h Gupta, Member ijudicial) on hie Mr. Goku l Chandra Pati, Member jA.dministratiY.tl Contempt Petition No.330/177/2017 (Arising out of Transfer Application No.849 /2013) D.C. Tripa thi aged about 68 years S/ o R.N. Tripa thi R/ o Viii. Bulun Ka Purw a Anap ur Allahabad.
......... ....... Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ashis h Srivastava Versus Sri Satish Kuma r, Divisional Personnel Officer, Allahabad Divis ion N.C.R. Allahabad.
. ........ ........ . Respondent By Advocate: Shri R.K. Rai ORD ER Deliv ered by Hon' ble Mr. Justice Dines h Gupt a-Me mber (T) Hear d Shri Ashis h Srivastava counsel for the applic ant.
2. Prese nt Conte mpt Petiti on has been filed by the applic ant for non comp liance of the order dated 13.07.2017 passe d in O.A. No.849 of 2017 by which this Court has passe d the following order :-
"9. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to submit his representation for regularization of his absence period ~nd ettlement form within a period of 2 ·weeks from today and the respondents/competent authority is dire~ted to decide the representation, to be sub1nitted Page No. 2 by the appli orde . h. cant, by a reasoned and speaking 0 ,; r wzt zn 2 months from the date of receipt 1 settle1nent form."
3. Learned coun I f se or the applicant submitted that this Court decided the o A i I • • n c ear words that the period of absence shall be decided on th b .
e asis of the representation that applicant will submit with'm two weeks for payment of pension and the respondents were directed to pay the same on submission of settlement form but the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant and not complied with the order of this Court in letter and spirit.
:4 '
4. We have perused the Contempt Petition and from the perusal of the same it is found that respondents in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, considered the representation of the applicant thoroughly and rejected the same by a detailed reasoned and speaking order dated 12.10.2017 which the applicant has annexed in his contempt petition as Annexure No.6.
t 5. In the case of Lalit Mathur Vs. L. Maheswara Rao (2000) 10 sec 285, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"The High Court in the writ petition had issued a direction for the consideration of the respondent's representation by the State Government. This direction was carried out by the State Government which had considered and thereafter rejected the representation on merits. Instead of challenging that 4 Page No. J t order in a faes11 Writ t' · pe ztzon under Article 226, t',ze respondent took ,.,ecour .
wh • h dzd se to d·
zc . no te as the decontempt p,o,."e
t 1· ""' tngs
already been
com~lzed with by the St o~ r had conszdered the ate Government which had merits." representation and rejected it on
6. In the case of Shail RaJ. K'IShore, Secretary, Education basic, U.P. Lucknow and others 2004 (3) AWC 2444 the Hon'ble court ha s held as under:-
sed by the opposite "If the. applicants feel that the order pas or desire of the party zs not in accordance to the intent n;, the same can only Court or othenvise illegal and arbitra forum. In various cases, be challenged before the appropriate mpt Court cannot go Apex Court has held that the Conte s grounds raised by the into the merit of the order. Variou that the order is bad in learned for the applicant to submit udication, which can law required consideration and adj Court and not by this only be done by the appropriate Court."
made by the Ho n'b le Apex
7. Considering the observations is an d facts of the case, we find tha t no pri ma facie case Co urt d the ent an d res po nd en t has pa sse made ou t against the respond the pliance of the direction of order on 12.10.2017 in com d.
ibu na l's ord er. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismisse Tr l aggrieved by the ord er of the However, if the applicant is stil ma y file fre sh O.A chall . for_ en ging the same.
res po nd en t he _____ _ Q ._