Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dhaneshwar Ram vs Sri Ashutosh Gangal, Gm, N.R. Lucknow & ... on 27 April, 2023
Contempt Petition No.123/2022 in O.A.1693/2012
(Reserved on 26.4.2023)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
****
Contempt Petition No. 123/2022 in
Original Application No.1693 of 2012
This the 27th Day of April, 2023.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
1. Dhaneshwar Ram s/o late Algu Yadav r/o S-4/41, G-1,
Panchvati Dham, Kathvatiya Shivpur, Varanasi-3.
2. Hans Raj Yadav s/o late Ram Khelawan Yadav R/o C-33-65-
1, Acharya Narendra Deo Nagar, Chandu, Chhittorrpur, Varanasi
......Petitioners
By Advocate: Sri L.S. Kushwaha
Versus
1. Sri Ashutosh Gangal, General Manager, Northern
Railway, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
2. Sri Suresh Kumar Sapra, Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Lucknow.
3. Sri Bubble Yadav, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Northern Railway, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Sri M.K.Sharma
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The present contempt petition has been filed by the applicants of O.A. No. 1693/2012, for non-compliance of the order dated 9th May 2022 passed in aforesaid O.A. by which the Tribunal has passed the following orders:-
"7. In our view, this OA can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents that in view of the detailed and comprehensive Page 1 of 4 Contempt Petition No.123/2022 in O.A.1693/2012 statement which they have made and which is placed at page no.22 of the original application they should re-examine the matter with respect to computation of the pension and other retrial benefits of the applicants. No doubt the ante- dated promotion and fixation of salary was on notional basis and the applicants were certainly not entitled to arrears, however, the notional benefits does imply that the subsequent consequential benefits can be denied to such persons who have been given notional benefits.
8. Accordingly, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed that within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order pass an appropriate order in terms of the entitlement of the pension and other retrial benefits of the applicants as a consequence of the reassignment of promotion of fixation of salary."
2. In compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal, respondents have filed compliance affidavit dated 15.3.2023, annexing therewith the order dated 6.9.2022. It is stated in this order that applicant No. 1 was appointed as Commercial apprentice and at the time of his retirement working as Commercial Supervisor Coaching in the scale of Rs. 1600/- to 2660/- w.e.f. 1.1.1993 and was granted benefit of under cadre restructuring letter dated 8.11.1993 and the impugned order have been granted the said benefit in the respective grade w.e.f. 5.5.1987 on notional basis and accordingly his pay was fixed at Rs. 1700/- . As far as applicant No. 2 is concerned, while working as Ex-CBS/BSN, he was promoted in the grade of Rs. 1600/- to 2600/- (RPS) w.e.f. 15.5.1985 and accordingly instead of Rs. 1520/- his pay was fixed to Rs. 1600/- w.e.f. 1.1.1987 both the applicants on attaining the age of superannuation has retired w.e.f. 30.9.2001 and 30.11.2000 respectively. Earlier applicant had filed O.A. No.1429/2002 and the same was decided on 31.3.2011 and in compliance of the aforesaid judgment, the pay of the applicants were revised in terms of Railway Board order dated 9.7.2012 and Page 2 of 4 Contempt Petition No.123/2022 in O.A.1693/2012 8.6.2012 respectively and a detailed chart have been issued and against the aforesaid orders, applicants have filed the present O.A. and in pursuance of the directions issued by this Tribunal in the instant O.A., respondents have again considered the case of applincant and found that order dated 9.7.2012 and 8.6.2012 in respect of applicants of the present OA. are self explanatory on the subject , as the benefit to the individuals have already been extended on the basis of comprehensive position by granting the benefit from due date by revising the same as per recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission as admissible under the rules. It is further stated that from the above submission, petitioner pay decided earlier vide order dated 9.7.2012 and 8.6.2012 were correct and no change is required at this stage.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed Rejoinder Affidavit on 18.4.2023 and contended that affidavit of compliance is not correct. It is submitted that answering respondents instead of complying the order passed by this Tribunal on 9.5.2022 issued a letter dated 6.9.2022 and by that letter the answering respondents has justified the earlier order passed regarding pay fixation of the applicants whereas this Hon'ble Tribunal had directed to refix the pay of the applicant as per their entitlement and recalculate the pension and pensionary benefits and pay the arrears of the same but the answering respondents has only reiterated his earlier version. Applicants at time of submission of order passed by this Tribunal has also sent rule position and a calculation sheet of refixation of their pay but the respondents have not considered the same.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the judgment dated 9.5.2022 it is clear that Tribunal had directed to pass an appropriate order in terms of the entitlement of the pension and other retrial benefits of the applicants as a consequence of the reassignment of promotion and fixation of salary. Accordingly, respondents have passed a detailed and speaking order dated 6.9.2022 and annexed Page 3 of 4 Contempt Petition No.123/2022 in O.A.1693/2012 therewith a chart of fixation of pay. Applicant has also produced revised chart of refixation of pay of applicant No.1 dated 4.1.2023 , as per order of CAT in O.A. NO. 1693/2022 decided on 9.5.2022.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the respondents have committed any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal and nothing survive to be adjudicated in the present contempt petition. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed/closed and notices issued to the respondents are discharged.
7. MAs, if any pending in this contempt petition, also stands disposed off.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) ( Justice OM Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
HLS/-
Page 4 of 4