Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Satyapal Singh S/O Sri Ganga Singh vs I.M.G. Khan on 27 April, 2016
RESERVED
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
(THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2016)
Present
HONBLE MS. JASMINE AHMED, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. O.P.S. MALIK, MEMBER (A)
Civil Misc. Opening of Case Application No.4710 of 2013
(Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987)
in
Civil Misc. ContemptApplication No.164 OF 2007
ALONGWITH
Original Application No.1111 OF 2000
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
1. Satyapal Singh S/o Sri Ganga Singh, r/o Village and Post Mandure, Aonla, Distt.Bareilly (U.P.) presently working as Casual Personal C.P. Chowkidar with Temporary Status in Sub Post Office, Aonla, District-Bareilly.
2. Sushil Kumar S/o Sri Ram Bharosey R/o H.No.910, Bakarganj, Balmiki Basti, Bareilly, presently working as a Safaiwala in S.S.P. Office, Head Post Office, Bareilly, U.P. with temporary status.
3. Madan Singh Bisht S/o Late R/o 505 Marinath, Bareilly, U.P., presently working as Gateman in the office of Superintendent of Post Stores Deptt., Rampur Bagh, Bareilly, U.P. with temporary status.
4. Prabhu Dayal S/o Shri Bhoop Ram R/o Village Doharia P.O. B.K. University, Bareilly, presently working as Care Taker with Temporary status.
5. Purkan Ahmad S/o Late Sri Maula Bux R/o H.No.268, Chare Cheikh Mithoa, Bareilly, presently working as Pump Operator, Postal Colony, Bareilly with temporary status.
6. Chet Ram S/o Shri Bhurri Lal R/o Subhash Nagar, Bareilly, presently working as Night Chowkidar in the CGHS Dispensary Choupla Exchange, Bareilly with temporary status.
7. Daulat Ram S/o Shri Tika Ram R/o Q, No.9, Second Floor, Type-I, P&T Choupla Colony, Choupla, Bareilly, presently working as a Plumber in the office of SSP Head Post Office, Bareilly Cantt.
8. Madan Singh, S/o Shri Kharag Singh R/o P&T Colony, Q.No.10, Second Floor, Type-I, Choupla, Bareilly, presently working as a Night Chowkidar, SSP Office, Head Post Office, Bareilly, U.P. with temporary status.
9. Rai Bahadur S/o Chhideo Singh C/o Sri Lakhan Ram (Lekhpal), Nekpar, presently working as a (Farrash), in the office of the PMO Civil Lines, Bareilly, U.P. with temporary status.
10. Subhash Singh, S/o Shri Poom Singh, R/o Village Banjaria, P.O. Sheiat Khan Baheri District- Bareilly (U.P.) presently working as a Chowkidar Post Office Baheri District Bareilly, U.P. With temporary status.
11. Hari Om S/o Shri Raghunath Prasad Sharma, R/o H.No. B-35, Ashok Vihar, P.O. Izatnagar, Chowkidar in Head Post Office, Bareilly with temporary status.
12. Het Ram S/o Sri Kishan Lal R/o Gopal Nagar, Bareilly presently working as Waterman in Gardner in the office of Supdt. Postal Stores, Rampur Bagh, Bareilly.
Applicants
V E R S U S
1. I.M.G. Khan, Director General, Directorate of Director General, Department of Post Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Neelam Srivastava, Chief Postmaster General, Department of Post, Govt. of India, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. N.P. Yadav, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bareilly Division, Head Post Office, U.P.
..Respondents
Advocates for the Applicant:- Shri R.C. Pathak
Advocate for the Respondents:- Shri S. Srivastava
O R D E R
DELIVERED BY HONBLE MS. JASMINE AHMED, MEMBER (J) The applicant has filed a Civil Misc. Application under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987 for opening of case.
2. The chorological background of the case given as below:-
The original application was decided on 21.3.2001. The operative portion of the order dated 21.3.2001 is quoted below:-
4. As the Honble Supreme Court held that after rendering 3 years continuous service with temporary status casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary group D employees in the department of posts and thereby be entitled for such benefits as are admissible to group D employees with regular basis. The G.O. issued on 26.9.2000 cannot be justified. In our opinion the impugned order dated 19.9.2000 is illegal and void which directs payment of bonus at the lesser rate and direction for recovery is illegal and cannot be sustained. The OA is accordingly allowed. The order dated 18.9.2000 is quashed. The respondents are directed to continue to pay the bonus to the applicant at the rate specified in the order dated 8.12.1992, which was passed on the basis of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
This order was challenged by the respondents before the Honble High Court by writ petition no.21577 of 2001 and by order dated 9.5.2007 the writ petition was dismissed by the Honble High Court of Allahabad. An SLP was also filed by the respondents before the Honble Apex Court which was also dismissed by order dated 7.4.2008. The applicant filed Contempt Petition No.164 of 2007 before this Tribunal and after hearing both the parties the contempt petition was dismissed with the observation stated below:-
7. In view of the above, we find that the order passed by this Tribunal has fully been complied with. Therefore, the instant contempt petition is dismissed . Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.
3. The applicant filed a civil misc. recall application no.3242 of 2011 which was decided on 11.6.2013 by a Full Bench of this Tribunal (Allahabad Bench) wherein after a detailed deliberation on the acts and procedures it has been decided that recall application is not maintainable against an order passed in a contempt case decided on merits.
4. After that the applicant has filed an Execution application No.01 of 2013 under section 22,27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 read with Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987 and order 21 Rules 10,11(2),22 of the CPC. A detailed order was also passed on the execution application and execution application was dismissed on limitation.
The applicant has filed this civil misc. application for opening of the case under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties, and perused all the documents on record. The applicant has filed this application under Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987 for re-opening of the case. Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules reads as under:-
24. Order and directions in certain cases.-The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. The counsel for the applicant has relied his argument on the issue of applicability of Rule 24 of the various judgments passed by this Tribunal.
6. The applicability of Rule 24 is already discussed at length in the Full Bench Judgment which is quoted below:-
24. Order and directions in certain cases.-The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. The aforesaid Rules 1987 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 35 and 36 of the Act. But these Rules do not deal with contempt matters for which there are separate Rules namely CAT (Contempt of Court) Rules 1992. The above procedure Rules have been framed in respect of Administrative Tribunal Act and are meant only for service cases/OAs which are filed before the Tribunal u/s 19 of the Act. This section cannot be also construed to be equivalent to the inherent powers conferred upon the Civil Courts u/s 151 of the Civil Procedure Code which are very wide in nature. On the contrary, the application of CPC in the Tribunal has been restricted to only nine matters as contained in Section 22(3) from (a) to (i) and this list is exhaustive. We have also compared the language of Section 151 of CPC vis-`-vis the language of Section 24 of the CAT (procedure) Rules, 1987. There is a vast difference between the two and therefore, it cannot be said to be a replica of the inherent powers contained in Section 151 CPC. This has been done by the legislature knowingly and cautiously lest the entire scheme to get the service matters decided by the Tribunal expeditiously would be frustrated. It would be out of context to mention here that on the criminal side also, in Criminal Procedure Code, inherent powers of the Court have been saved specifically u/s 482 Cr. PC but no such power has been saved either in the Contempt of Court Act 1971 or in the Central Administrative Tribunal (Contempt of Courts) Rules,1992. Therefore, this submission also lacks merits.
7. While a contempt petition has already been decided on merit by the Court and came to the conclusion that order of the Tribunal has been fully complied with in this situation can under the garb of Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 it can be stated that as Rule 24 is having vast power to re-open a case when already a judicial decision is prevailing? While a Division Bench of This Tribunal has finalized the grievance of the applicants coming to conclusion that order of this Tribunal has been fully complied with, does judicial decorum permits under Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 to another Bench of the same Tribunal to order re-opening of the case annulling the prior decision?
8. In our considered view, after decision of the contempt petition as per settled principle of law if the applicant is still aggrieved, he is always having an option of filing of a fresh OA before the Tribunal instead of filing one after another misc. applications. Accordingly, as per our considered opinion, the misc. application of re-opening the case cannot be entertained, hence dismissed.
[O.P.S. Malik] [Jasmine Ahmed]
Member-A Member-J
/ns/
7