Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.K.Grover & Ors vs Praveen Mahajan & Anr on 2 September, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Jaspal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc. No.10577 of 2014 in/and
Civil Writ Petition No.17265 of 2014(O&M)
Date of Decision: September 02, 2014
S.K.Grover and others .....Petitioners
versus
Mrs.Praveen Mahajan and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH.
Present : Mr.HPS Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioners.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
CM No.10577 of 2014 Though there is no urgency in the matter and the application for pre-ponement of next date of hearing in the main petition is moved without any justification, we allow this application and pre-pone next date of hearing in the main petition which is taken on Board for final decision.
CM stands disposed of.
CWP No.17265 of 2014The petitioners impugn the orders dated 14.02.2014 and 19.03.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby their Contempt Petition has been dismissed and the review sought against that order has also been declined.
It appears that the petitioners had earlier filed OA No.767-HR/2013 which was decided by the Tribunal on 31.05.2013 with a direction to the Competent Authority to MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.10.09 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.17265 of 2014 (O&M) [2] take a decision on their claim which was based upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal dated 03.08.2012 passed in the case of Balwinder Singh Matharoo and others versus Union of India and another.
The petitioners alongwith above-named Balwinder Singh Matharoo filed a Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Tribunal. In the Contempt Petition, it was argued that the applicants were denied the benefit of seniority on the basis of services rendered by them in earlier Commissionerates.
On the other hand, the stand of the respondents was that the petitioners were entitled to conferment of all the benefits, seniority, pay fixation etc., from the date when other similarly placed persons were granted.
The claim regarding seniority benefits has thereafter been dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of its order dated 14.2.2014 to conclude in para No.10 that its previous direction stand fully complied with and there was no willful or deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents.
The Review Application was also dismissed by the Tribunal.
As the facts would speak for themselves, the Tribunal has rejected the Contempt Petition on merits after coming to the conclusion that its previous directions have been fully complied with. The petitioners cannot insist for initiation or continuation of contempt proceedings only because they have not been granted the desired relief. The contempt proceedings need to be viewed from the angle that these are between the Court and the contemner and no third MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.10.09 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.17265 of 2014 (O&M) [3] party can insist the court for initiation or continuation of such proceedings. The aforesaid order does not deprive the petitioners to file a fresh petition to seek the seniority benefit to which they might be entitled to in law.
With liberty aforementioned, the writ petition stands dismissed.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
September 02, 2014 [JASPAL SINGH]
Mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR
2014.10.09 14:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh