Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Vinay Kumar Jain vs Union Of India & Ors. Through on 3 December, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
CP 716/2011 in
O.A. 136/2010
Monday, this the 3rd day of December, 2012
Honble Shri G George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A)
1. Shri Vinay Kumar Jain,
S/o late Shri A.S. Jain,
Ex-Supervisor, ESD, NBH,
Room No. 417, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-1
R/o 37, Sansad Vihar,
West Enclave Pitam Pura,
Delhi-34.
2. Shri Vijay Kumar,
S/o late Shri S.N. Fotedar,
Supervisor, ESD, AIR,
415, NBH Sansad Marg, New Delhi,
R/o C-827, Sushant Lok-1,
Gurgaon-122001.
3. Smt. Bodhisri Shastri,
D/o Dr. S.B. Shastri,
Supervisor, ESD, AIR,
Room No. 416, NBH,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi
R/o A-403, M.S. Apartments,
K.G. Marg, New Delhi.
4. Shri R.L. Malhotra,
S/o Shri R.D. Malhotra,
Ex. Supervisor, ESD, AIR,
R/o A/A-242, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi-88.
Petitioners
{By Advocate: Shri B.S. Mainee}
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. through
1. Shri Raghu Menon,
Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Shri Rajiv Takru,
Chief Executive Officer/Director General,
All India Raido, Akashvani Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3. Shri L.D. Mandloi,
Director General
All India Radio
Akashvani Bhawan
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
.Contemnors
{By Advocates: Shri D.S. Mahendru for R(1) and Shri S.M. Arif for R(2)}
O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G George Paracken:
This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 06.05.2011 in OA No.136/2010. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
17. We are conscious that these directions, to a great extent, are in accordance with the orders passed by the respondents, on 11.09.2007. But those orders were not found to be not in order by any authority and the direction of the Tribunal in its common order in O.A. 1361/2007 and O.A. 871/2008 was to consider the entire matter again and pass orders. Thus, at one stage, the official respondents found that the applicants were entitled to these benefits after examining the matter with regard to their date of joining, regularization, nature of duties, etc. The order of the Tribunal in O.A.1361/2007 and O.A. 871/2008 among other things wanted care to be taken with regard to the other set of employees to see that they are not affected.
18. The above directions shall be complied by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
2. The respondents have carried the aforesaid order of this Tribunal before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide WP(C) No.5388/2012. Along with it, the respondents have also filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.10982/2012 seeking a direction to stay the aforesaid order of this Tribunal. However, the Honble High Court while admitting the aforesaid WP(C), directed the petitioners therein (Respondents herein) to implement the aforesaid order of this Tribunal subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition.
4. In view of the above position, there is no doubt that the respondents are bound to implement the aforesaid directions contained in the order of this Tribunal dated 5.6.2011 without any delay. Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 has however, submitted that since the order of the Honble High Court has come only on 02.11.2012, needful will be done in the matter soon.
5. In view of the above submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 this petition does not lie any further. However, we direct the respondents to take expeditious action to implement the aforesaid order and to issue appropriate orders as early as possible, but in any case within the next 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is closed. Notices issued to the alleged contemnors are discharged. No costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( G George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
/vb/