Telangana High Court
S.R.Mohapatra vs The General Manager, on 28 September, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
W.P.No. 26025 of 2005
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal') passed in C.P.No.11 of 2004 in O.A.No.222 of 2002 dt.10-02-2005.
2. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Chintalapuri Lakshmi Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he has filed O.A.No.222 of 2002 before the Tribunal challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting his study leave. The Tribunal vide orders dt.03-01-2003 was pleased to quash the cancellation orders of study leave dt.24-09-2001 and directed the respondent to permit the petitioner to avail the study leave AKS,J & SK,J 2 W.P.No.26025 of 2005 sanctioned vide orders dt.10-05-2000. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Tribunal, the respondent filed W.P.No.3085 of 2003 before this Court and this Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition vide orders dt.01-08-2003 with an observation that it is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal in quashing cancellation orders of study leave dt.24-09-2001. However, gave liberty to the Writ Petitioners therein i.e. respondent herein to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after giving a chance of hearing. Thereafter, when the respondent was not permitting the petitioner to avail the study leave, the petitioner has filed C.P.No.11 of 2004 before the Tribunal for non-compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.222 of 2002 which were confirmed by this Court by order dt.01-08-2003 and the Tribunal vide interim orders dt.04-03-2004 directed the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.222 of 2002 and listed the matters on 01-04-2004 for compliance and the Tribunal also observed that it is necessary to make it clear that the respondent is entitled to seek for recovery of the amount paid, AKS,J & SK,J 3 W.P.No.26025 of 2005 if ultimately such recovery is ordered in the final orders that may be passed after hearing the submission of the petitioner on the show cause notice issued to him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that again the matter was listed on 10-02-2005 and the Tribunal had closed the Contempt Petition on the ground that pursuant to the show cause notice dt.03-03-2004, the orders of study leave were once again cancelled which were challenged by the petitioner by filing another O.A. As the respondent has considered the case of the petitioner after issuing show cause notice in pursuance to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3085 of 2003 dt.01-08-2003, the study leave which was granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that when once the orders were passed in the Contempt Petition, the Tribunal could not have passed the order on 10-02-2005 contrary to its earlier orders dt.04-03-2004. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by AKS,J & SK,J 4 W.P.No.26025 of 2005 setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in C.P.No.11 of 2004 in O.A.No.222 of 2002 dt.10-02-2005.
6. This Court having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of the considered view that the Tribunal has not passed any final orders on 04-03-2004. It has only adjourned the case to 01-04-2004 so as to enable the respondent to comply the orders and the Tribunal also made it very clear that the respondents are entitled to seek for recovery of the amount paid, if ultimately such recovery is ordered in the final orders which are likely to be passed after hearing the submissions of the petitioner in pursuance to the show cause notice issue to the petitioner. When such a liberty is granted in the orders dt.04-03-2004, the study leave was cancelled by the respondent after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in closing the Contempt Petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal passed in C.P.No.11 of 2004 in O.A.No.222 of 2002 dt.10-02-2005.
AKS,J & SK,J 5 W.P.No.26025 of 2005
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
_____________________________
K. SARATH, J
Dt. -09-2022
kvr