Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Banshi Dhar (Mes 503560) vs Sh. S.K. Sharma on 23 May, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI CP No.223/2012 IN OA No.2760/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2012 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A) Sh. Banshi Dhar (MES 503560) S/o Late Sh. Bhawani Datt, R/o MES quarter 72/3, Garrison Engineer, Airforce, Tughlakabad, Delhi. ... Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri T.D. Yadav) Versus 1. Sh. S.K. Sharma, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. Lt. General Vijay Kumar Sharma Engineer in Chief Branch, Army Headquarter, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, DHQ PO, New Delhi. ..Respondents. (By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Katyal) ::ORDER(ORAL):: G.George Paracken, Member(J):
This Contempt Petition (CP for short) has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 19.09.2011 in OA No.2760/2010.
2. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents have challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court of Delhi by filing a Civil Writ Petition but the same was dismissed. Further, according to him, the Respondents have filed an SLP before the Honble Supreme Court of India in the matter and it is likely to be listed shortly and they are awaiting the orders on it.
3. We are not satisfied by the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. In our considered view, at least when the High Court has dismissed the matter they should have implemented the aforesaid order of the Tribunal subject to the outcome of the SLP being filed in the Supreme Court. Moreover filing of a Writ Petition in the High Court or an SLP in the Supreme Court itself will not absolve the Respondents from their responsibility to implement the order of this Tribunal in the absence of any stay or any other specific directions.
4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to implement the aforesaid order of this Tribunal forthwith subject to the outcome of the SLP pending before the Honble Supreme Court. Accordingly, this CP is closed and the notices issued to the alleged contemnors, are discharged. However, if the aforesaid direction is still not complied with, the petitioner is at liberty to revive this petition.
(Sudhir Kumar) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /vb/