Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mandeep Kumar vs Rakesh Asthana & Anr Comm. Of Police on 8 December, 2022
Item 16 CP No. 223/2022 in
OA No. 4153/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
CP No. 223/2022
in
OA No. 4153/2019
This the 8th Day of December, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Mandeep
S/o Sh. Ramdhari
R/o Village-Habatpur,
P.O. Nirjan, Haryana-126102
Aged about 30 Years
(Group 'C')
(Candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.))
...... Petitioner
(By Advocate: Mr Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Sh. Rakesh Asthana
Commissioner of Police
PHQ MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. S. Sukant S. Ballabh
Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Recruitment Cell)
New Police Lines
Kingsway Camp, Delhi- 110052
...Contemnors/Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr Amit Anand)
Item 16 CP No. 223/2022 in
OA No. 4153/2019
ORDER (Oral)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J):
The present CP has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful defiance of the directions of this Tribunal in Order dated 21.12.2021 in the captioned OA. The Para 18 of the said Order reads as under:-
"18. Under the circumstances and for the reasons explained above, we set aside the orders dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure A-1) and 15.06.2018 (Annexure A-
2). The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh as per law and in view of the observations made above. If the applicant is otherwise found fulfilling the required conditions, he shall be officered appointment to the post selected for, from the date he, otherwise, would have been eligible for, with such notional seniority as would have so accrued.
However, there shall be no back wages."
2. In response to notice of the Tribunal in the present proceedings, the respondents have filed affidavit and they have asserted therein that in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal, the respondents have considered the matter afresh. The matter was again placed before the standing committee keeping in view the directions of the Tribunal referred to herein above and considering all the facts and law, the committee has not recommended the name of the applicant for appointment and respondents keeping in view the said recommendation, have passed the said order dated 07.06.2022 (Annexure A-2).
2
Item 16 CP No. 223/2022 in OA No. 4153/2019
3. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the directions were given by this Tribunal, there was no occasion or justification available to the respondents to place the matter before the committee for reconsideration and the competent authority amongst the respondent departments was only required to consider the claim of the applicant keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal in the said Order.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the order passed by the respondents may not be in the true letter and spirit, however, the same cannot be construed as a wilful and deliberate defiance of the directions of this Tribunal. He further argues that nowhere the Tribunal has precluded the respondent department for consideration of the claim of the applicant afresh through the Standing Committee and therefore, if at all the matter while being considered afresh was placed before the Standing Committee, the same may not be construed as a wilful defiance of the directions of this Tribunal. He argues that in the directions itself, the Tribunal has recorded that respondents were required to consider the case of the applicant as per law and the law 3 Item 16 CP No. 223/2022 in OA No. 4153/2019 has also been referred to and considered by the committee constituted by the respondent department on the subject.
5. We have perused the pleadings on record and have considered the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties. Once it is admitted case that pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the respondents have considered the claim of the applicant afresh, the first limb of directions of this Tribunal is found to be complied with. So far the second limb of the directions is concerned, once on such fresh consideration, the committee concerned has not recommended the name of the applicant, is not construed a wilful defiance of the directions of this Tribunal on passing an order dated 07.06.2022 (Annexure R-2).
6. In the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of J S Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar And Others, reported in 1996 STPL 9964 SC particularly, in Para 5 thereof which reads as under:-
"5............. The question is : whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may he right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned single judge 4 Item 16 CP No. 223/2022 in OA No. 4153/2019 cannot be given to redraw the seniority list.................."
we do not find any wilful defiance of the directions of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the present CP is closed. Notices are discharged. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate his grievances, if any, in accordance with law.
(Anand S. Khati) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pinky/
5