Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Krishna Mohan Tiwari vs Shri P K Tripathi on 18 October, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi C.P.No.500/2012 in O.A.No.2403/2011 Thursday, this the 18th day of October, 2012 Honble Shri G George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Shri Krishna Mohan Tiwari s/o Shri Ramayan Prasad Tiwari aged about 43 years r/o F-184/A, Sector 11 Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad (UP) and Working as PGT (Political Science) (Male) Under Govt. of NCT of Delhi ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri S S Tiwari) Versus 1. Shri P K Tripathi Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi New Sectt. Near Indira Gandhi Stadium IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Shri Amit Singla Director of Education Directorate of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt., Delhi-54 3. Shri Suresh Gupta Additional Director of Education (Admn.) (now post redesignated as Spl. Director of Education) Directorate of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Sectt., Delhi-54 4. Dr. Saroj Bala Sain Deputy Director of Education (E) Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi D Block, Anand Vihar, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri N K Singh for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G George Paracken:
This CP has been filed for the alleged non-implementation of the Orders of this Tribunal dated 9.2.2012 in O.A.No.2403/2011. The operative part of the aforesaid order reads as under:-
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this O.A. is allowed. The respondents shall fix the pay of the applicant on notional basis at par with his junior Shri Pramod Kumar. Consequential benefits arising on such notional fixation shall also be granted to the applicant. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor, the respondents have filed WP (C) No.6153/2012 before the Honble High Court of Delhi against the aforesaid order of this Tribunal and it has been re-notified for 28.1.2013. He has, therefore, submitted that this CP is not maintainable. In this regard, he relied upon the order in Ram Avadh Singh v. Lalji Yadav & others (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2253/2000) wherein the Apex Court, vide order dated 20.8.2001, has held that in view of the pendency of the stay application, the contempt proceedings have to be withdrawn.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Sajad Majid v. Dr. Syed Zahoor Ahmed & another, 1989 Cri LJ 2065 wherein it has been stated that there is no bar to entertain contempt proceedings or issue Rule during limitation period provided for appeal or even if the appeal against the order is filed and stay is not obtained.
4. He has also brought to our notice the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. H. Phunindre Singh & others v. K.K. Sethi & another, (1998) 8 SCC 640 wherein it has been held that contempt petition should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of the communication of the order. It has been further held in the aforesaid case that before disposal of the contempt petition, the pending appeal should not be taken up for hearing.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S S Tiwari and learned proxy counsel for the alleged contemnors, Shri N.K. Singh. The order of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the alleged contemnors is passed in the context of that case and it is not the law laid down by the Apex Court in this matter. The opening sentence of the said order itself says that it was not a fit case where proceedings for contempt should have been initiated. Further, it is a settled position that when an order is passed by this Tribunal and if it is not stayed by the higher forum, it has to be implemented and given effect to, in terms of Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
6. In view of the above position, we direct the respondents to implement the aforesaid order of this Tribunal forthwith, subject to the outcome of the writ petition pending before the Honble High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, this CP is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( G George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
/vb/