Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Pragati Gogia vs Dept Of Defence on 17 September, 2025
1 CP 200/63/2023
(in OA 710/2021)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Contempt Petition No.200/63/2023
(in Original Application No.710/2021)
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 17th day of September, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Pragati Gogia, D/o Shri Dilip Kumar Gogia, aged about 34 years,
Occupation - Chargeman-I, 506, Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur,
R/o 2271, Dr. Barat Road, Napier Town, Jabalpur (M.P) 482001.
-Petitioner
(By Advocate - Shri Manoj Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Ms. Priyal Suryawanshi)
Versus
1. Col Vijay Kappor, Director General of EME (Civ-4) Master
General of the Ordnance Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of
Defence (Army) DHQ PO, New Delhi 110011.
2. Maj Gen RK Yadav, Commander Head Quarter, Army Base
Workshop Group EME (ORG & Adm) Sardhana Road, Meerut
Cantt, Meerut (UP) - 250001.
3. Maj Kulvinder Singh, The Sr Record Officer, EME Records, C/o
CA-3 Section Sikandrabad, Telangana - 500021.
4. Brig Alok Singh, the Commandant & Managing Director, 506
Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur (MP) - 482005.
- Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri D.S. Baghel)
(Date of reserving order : 02.09.2025)
ORDER
Page 1 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 2 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;
This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non compliance of order dated 06.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.710/2021.
2. The order passed by the Tribunal was assailed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, at the hands of the respondents, by filing M.P. No.2019 of 2023, in which no stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court. The said M.P. ultimately came to be decided on 07.02.2024 and the Hon'ble High Court did not incline to interfere with the order passed by this Tribunal.
3. The respondents then filed compliance report (Annexure R-1) stating to have complied with the order passed by this Tribunal coupled with the observations by the Hon'ble High Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this is a deliberate disregards to the order passed by this Tribunal as also by the Hon'ble High Court as the so called compliance report is nothing but reiteration to the facts, which had already been dealt with at length by this Tribunal while allowing the Original Application No.710/2021 (supra). This Tribunal held the petitioner entitled for in-situ promotion as Foreman Part-I at 506, Army Base Page 2 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 3 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) Workshop Jabalpur w.e.f. the date of creation of vacancy on 01.05.2021. The consideration of the petitioner was to be seen from the observations made by this Tribunal in the preceding paragraphs and not in a mechanical manner what has been done in the so called compliance report.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no case of contempt as the direction with respect to consider the petitioner for in-situ promotion as Foreman Part-I at 506, Army Base Workshop Jabalpur w.e.f. the date of creation of vacancy on 01.05.2021 has been duly complied with. There was no direction to post the petitioner for in-situ promotion as Foreman Part I at 506, Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur w.e.f. the date of creation of vacancy on 01.05.2021. This is what has been said by the Hon'ble High Court in the order dated 07.02.2024 in MP No.2019/2023.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Original Application No.710/2021 was filed by the petitioner aggrieved that she has not been granted in situ promotion on the post of Foreman under Part-I cadre in 506, Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur. In order to appreciate the findings of this Page 3 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 4 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) Tribunal, we would like to quote relevant paragraphs of the order, which read as under:
"7. The respondent No.2, i.e. Directorate General of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers had introduced a policy dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure RI) for posting of Group 'A' & 'B' civilian personnel with the objective to ensure effective and efficient functioning of the units/establishments as also to enhance exposure of activities. As per the policy, the posting of officers is to be done as per their employability based on their academic qualification, courses done, the service experience etc. Further, there is a specific provision under clause 19 of the said policy for requirement of a particular officer for specific/specialized jobs/hi technology appointments, which reads as under:
"19. Requirement of having a particular officer for specific/specialized jobs/hi technology appointments will be examined on receipt of cases from various establishments. Such cases shall be fwd to Director General of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers with specific recommendations of Senior Electronics and Mechanical Engineers Officer for approval by the Director General of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers."
8. After the issuance of promotion order of the applicant dated 17.04.2021 to Foreman Part-I cadre and her posting to 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra, a proposal (Annexure A-2) was sent by the office of respondent No.5 in terms of the provisions contained in clause 19 of the policy dated. The same is extracted below for ready reference:
"STATEMENT OF CASE FOR IN-SITU PROMOTION AND POSTING IN RESPECT OF P.NO.14693120W CHARGEMAN PRAGATI GOGIA OF 506 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP, JABALPUR INTRODUCTION
1. 506 Army Base Workshop is a Centre of Industrial and Technical Excellence for Armament and Small Arms. The role of 506 Army Base Workshop is to undertake base overhaul and base repairs of armament equipment and small arms like 105/37mm IFG, 105/37mm LFG, 130mm M46 gun, 155mm SOLTAM gun, 155mm FH 77BO2 Bofors and 40mm L-70 guns of entire Indian Army (IA).Page 4 of 17
ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 5 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021)
2. The 40mm L-70 is the mainstay gun with Army Air Defence. This 40mm L-70 gun has been recently upgraded electronically by M/s BEL Chennai. A team of technicians of 506 ABW headed by P.No14693120W Chargeman Pragati Gogia has been trained at M/s BEL Chennai on Upgraded 40mm L-70 gun. Chareman Pragati Gogia has been promoted to Foreman under Pt-1 cadre and has been posted to 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra with immediate effect. 506 Army Base Workshop will thus lose out on the expertise gained by Chargeman Pragati Gogia in case she moves out to 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra. Chargeman Pragati Gogia on promotion to Foreman should be retained at 506 Army Base Workshop in organisational interest to handle upgraded and non-upgraded 40mm L-70 gunds.
PROPOSAL
3. It is proposed that sanction be accorded for in-situ promotion and posting in respect of P.No.14693120W Chargeman Pragati Gogia of 506 Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur.
JUSTIFICATION
4. 506 ABW is responsible to undertake base overhaul of variants of Arty guns, 40mm L70 AD gun and base repairs of many small arms. The 40mm L-70 Air Defence gun is the mainstay with Army Air Defence. Around 300 qty of 40mm L- 70 gun has been upgraded electronically by M/s BEL Chennai since year 2017. Presently 506 ABW is overhauling 40mm L- 70 guns and subsequently will be handling upgraded L-70 guns as well. A team of technicians of 506 ABW headed by P.No.14693120W Chargeman Pragati Gogia has been trained at M/s BEL Chennai on Upgraded 40mm L-70 gun (Certificate of training enclosed as Encl-1). Chargeman Pragati Gogia is establishing Servo Technical Testing (STT) facility at 506 ABW for trouble shooting and testing of upgraded L-70 gun system.
5. Chargeman Pragati Gogia has been promoted to Foreman under Pt-1 cadre (Panel Year 2021) vide EME Records letter No 1621/T-10/Prom/FM(Pt-I)/82/CA-3 dated 17 Apr 21 (Letter enclosed as Encl-2) and has been posted to 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra with immediate effect. 506 Army Base Workshop will thus lose out on the expertise gained by Chargeman Pragati Gogia in case she moves out to 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra. Also Chargeman Pragati Gogia is Page 5 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 6 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) actively involved in the overhaul and base repairs of electronics and hydraulics of L-70 gun at present.
6. Moreover, 506 ABW is authorized 23 x Foreman and as on date there are only none posted. It is also pertinent to mention that Personal No. 14691457A Foreman (Pt-1) Krishna Kumar Verma posted in 506 ABW retired on 30 Apr and his vacancy created in 506 ABW. This aspect has not been considered by EME Records. Moreover, Pragati is senior most (from 506 ABW) in Select panel of Calendar year 2021 (Letter enclosed as Encl-3), she will be eligible for posting in-situ, on promotion if this vacancy created, is considered by EME Records. In view of the above and in the interest of organisation, Chareman Pragati Gogia should be promoted in-situ and posted to 506 Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur.
FINANCIAL EFFECT
7. There shall be no financial effect as the proposal is for in- situ promotion and posting of one Chargeman.
CONCLUSION
8. 40mm L-70 is the mainstay gun with Army Air Defence and base overhaul and base repairs are being undertaken at 506 Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur only. This gun system is being electronically upgraded. To render efficient and effective engg support to this gun system by 506 Army Base Workshop, retention of trained manpower is required. P.No 14693120W Chargeman Pragati Gogia has been trained at M/s BEL Chennai on Upgraded 40mm L-70 gun. It is strongly recommended that sanction be accorded for in-situ promotion and posting of P.No 14693120W Chargeman Pragati Gogia of 506 Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur."
9. A plain reading of the proposal made by respondent No.5 to respondent No.3, makes it clear that the recommendation for in-situ promotion was made on account of interest of organisation as the applicant has been trained on upgraded 40mm L-70 gun and has also headed over the team of technicians of 506 Army Base Workshop while their training at M/s BEL Chennai on upgraded 40mm L-70 gun. Hence, she was recommended for retention at 506 Army Base Workshop on account of requirement of trained manpower. Not only this, it was also proposed that the applicant could have been adjusted at 506 Army Base Workshop itself on account of creation of one vacancy w.e.f. 01.05.2021 after the retirement of Shri Krishna Kumar Verma. However, both these Page 6 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 7 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) aspects have been lost sight by the respondent No.3 while issuing the promotion order of the applicant vis-à-vis the persons promoted on same date, i.e. 17.04.2021. Nevertheless, as per the policy guidelines the proposal made by respondent No.5 should have been forwarded to Director General of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers (respondent No.2) for its approval.
10. It is also apparent from record that all the five persons posted at 506 Army Base Workshop, belonging to 2020 panel, were given in-situ promotion (at the same place) and the applicant was the next incumbent to be considered for promotion. It can safely be said that the applicant was under the legitimate expectation to be retained at same place after in-situ promotion of her seniors and, thus, posting out to the applicant only does not seem to be justified in view of the equal treatment guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the applicant can certainly said to be aggrieved particularly when she has not been given an equal treatment vis-à- vis persons similarly situated to that of applicant. We also take note of the fact that one post of Foreman Part-I was lying vacant in the 506 Army Base Workshop Jabalpur w.e.f 01.05.2021 on account of retirement of one Shri Krishna Kumar Verma just mere a short span of 13 days from the issuance of promotion-cum-posting order of the applicant and other five persons dated 17.04.2021, and the applicant could have been easily adjusted against that vacant post especially due to the availability of vacancy position as on 28.07.2021 detailed in Annexure A-5. Moreover, when the policy (Annexure A-6) itself provides for requirement of having particular officer likewise the applicant for specialized job for which a strong recommendation was made by the respondent No.5, the authority should have considered such proposal within the parameters of the policy giving full regards to the provision contained in the policy. It is quite surprising to note that the post in the cadre of Foreman Part-I at 506 Army Base Workshop Jabalpur remained vacant till 18.06.2022 when the promotioncum-posting order of respondent No.6 was issued and if the applicant could not be granted promotion in-situ earlier, she could have been accommodated during interregnum. In any case, the respondent No.6 has not joined yet as contended by learned counsel for the applicant, which has also not been refuted by learned counsel for the respondents.
11. Having considered the entire facts and material placed before us, we are of the view that the applicant is entitled to be considered for in-situ promotion as Foreman Part-I at 506, Army Base Workshop Jabalpur w.e.f. the date of creation of vacancy on 01.05.2021. Ordered accordingly. Let the necessary exercise and Page 7 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 8 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) orders in this regard be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. In the result, this Original Application is allowed, without there being any order as to costs."
8. When the order (ibid) was not complied with within the time allowed, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Petition, which came up for hearing first time on 03.11.2023 and notices were issued to the respondents. Meanwhile, during the pendency of this Contempt Petition, on 01.04.2024, a statement was made by the respondents' counsel that an MA No.263/2024 has been moved by them seeking extension of time for compliance of order. It was due to the reason that the M.P. No.2019 of 2023 filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 07.02.2024. It is apt to note that the Hon'ble High Court by and large agreed with the findings of this Tribunal and has not passed any order contrary to the order passed by this Tribunal.
9. Ultimately, on 08.11.2024 (Annexure R-1), i.e. after about nine months from the date of dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition and even after expiry of time limit given to the respondents in MA No.263/2024, a reasoned and speaking order came to be issued under the heading compliance of this Tribunal's order. This was brought along with compliance report filed by the respondents on Page 8 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 9 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) 15.01.2025. The relevant extracts of the order dated 08.11.2024 are reproduced below:
"4. AND WHEREAS, in compliance to the order dated 06 Jan 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in OA No 710/2021 as clarified by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 07 Feb 2024 passed in MP No 2019/2023 dated 14 Dec 2023, the State of Case dated 26 Apr 2021 has been examined at the Directorate General of EME in the light of the following factual averments brought forth by the appropriate staff in an independent, unbiased and reasonable manner to the undersigned as the Competent Authority in the instant matter:-
(a) The Commander Base Workshop Group EME has not rendered positive recommendations in the instant matter.
(b) As per the extent policy there is provision of in-situ promotion at a particular establishment or unit for the Senior most employee(s) of the establishment or unit in the order of Seniority to be promoted in-situ to the extent of the number of vacant posts for that panel that are available in the establishment or unit. Hence, after the senior most in the Select Panel of the particular establishment or unit have been placed in these vacant posts, the remnant junior employees in the Select Panel are posted on promotional posts vacant in other Establishments or Units under jurisdiction of Dte Gen of EME by EME Records.
(c) The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for Chargeman to Foreman (Part-I) Cadre) for two years, i.e. the Panel Year 2020 and Panel Year 2021 was conducted from 02 Nov 2020 to 05 Nov 2020 at EME Records, Secunderabad. These DPCs consisted under mentioned vacancies:-
(i) Panel Year 2020 will overall 30 vacancies (including 05 vacancies available at 506 Army Base Sksp) as on 01 Jan 2020.
(ii) Panel Year 2021 will overall 58 vacancies (including NIL vacancy available at 506 Army Base Wksp) as on 01 Jan 2021.
(d) Overall 06 x Defence Civilian Employees of 506 Army Base Wksp were approved by the DPC for the Panel year 2020. Accordingly, as per seniority 05 x vacancies of promotion quota Page 9 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 10 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) were filled in-situ by the individuals of Panel Year 2020 vide Promotion-cum-posting order No 1621/T-10/Prom/FM(PT-
1)/80/CA-3 dt 17 Apr 2021 and 01 x individual of the Panel year 2020, who is senior to Smt Pragati Gogia could also not be accommodated in-situ and was posted to 509 Army Base Wksp vide Promotion-cum-Posting order dt 17 Apr 2021.
(d) In the Select Panel Year 2021, total 09 x Defence Civilian Employees of 506 Army Base Wksp were approved by the DPC and Smt Pragati Gogia was at seniority No-01. However, due to the absence of available vacancies pertaining to the Panel Year 2021 in 506 Army Base Wksp on 01 Jan 2021, Smt Pragati Gogia was ordered for Promotion-cum-posting to the post of Foreman (Part-I Cadre) in 509 Army Base Wksp against existing vacancies in the Corps of EME vide Promotion-cum-Posting Order 1621/T- 10/Prom/FM(PT-I)82/CA-3 dt 17 Apr 2021.
(d) As per existing procedures and order on the subject the Select Panel is drawn based on current vacancies and promotions can only be issued against these vacancies and not against any future vacancies. It is apposite to highlight that any future vacant posts that are to be available for the next ensuing DPC cannot be sought to be irregularly appropriated as vacant posts being non- compliant to orders vide Dte Gen of EME letter No 24460/Promotoin/PC-2/EME Civ-3 dated 22 Feb 1994. As settled in law any such appointment/promotion effected in excess of the vacant posts available at the time is irregular as it would deprive those candidates who are not eligible at the time but who will become eligible to be rightfully appointed/promoted to these posts in the subsequent year.
xxx xxx xxx
6. AND WHEREAS, Smt Prgati Gogia's claim of being aggrieved by the Promotion cum Posting Order depends upon the content and intent of the extant rules and orders, the nature and extent of her interest and the extent of prejudice. The entire repository of facts brought forth for my consideration clearly establish that the claim of Smt Pragati Gogia is in contravention of the extant orders, towards irregular perpetuation of her tenure in the same Establishment despite being a Government Servant appointed with All India Service Liability and entails no prejudice or bias whatsoever being caused to her.
7. AND WHEREAS, a request/petition of a DCE as a Government Servant/Employee can be considered by the Competent Authority in the Department only towards the extent of ensuring Page 10 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 11 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) compliance to the extant Government of India rules & orders and towards sustaining the principles of Natural Justice and propositions emanating from the principles laid down in a number of precedent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the status of a Government Employee especially the following principle:-
"In view of the dominance of the Rules that govern the relationship between the Government and its employees all matters concerning employment and conditions of service are governed by the rules. There are no rights outside the provisions of the rules."
8. AND THEREFORE, after having considered all aspects of the Statement of Case as per established procedure and conscious application of mind in a non-arbitrary and reasoned manner, the proposal in the impugned Statement of Case for in-situ promotion of Smt Pragati Gogia, Chargeman at 506 Army Base Workshop cannot be acceded to in the organizational interest as well as larger 'Public Interest'."
10. While in Para 4(b) of the order dated 08.11.2024 quoted above, the respondents are admitting the fact that there is a provision of in-
situ promotion at a particular establishment or unit in the order of seniority to be promoted in-situ to the extent of the number of vacant posts for that panel that are available in the establishment, but at the end they deny petitioner to grant in-situ promotion. The reason not to grant in-situ promotion to the petitioner, as reflected in the order dated 08.11.2024, is that there was no vacancy available in the Panel Year 2021 in 506 Army Base Wksp on 01 Jan 2021.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as to how the vacancies are to be calculated and what are the procedures that are Page 11 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 12 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) to be adopted by the DPC, has been deliberated in the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1998 (Annexure RJ-1) issued by the DoP&T. The said Office Memorandum inter alia states to fill up the existing as well as anticipated vacancies well in advance of the expiry of the previous panel. The relevant extracts of the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1998 are reproduced below:
"3.1 Keeping the aforesaid objective in view, it has been considered imperative to provide for a time-schedule, for convening DPCs not only in time but in sufficient advance also so as to utilise the prepared panel as and when the vacancies arise during the course of the vacancy year. For practical reasons, it is also considered desirable to have separate time-schedules for cases requiring approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet and cases which do not require such approval. Accordingly, in order to complete all required action, including the approval of the competent authority, well in time (before the commencement of the panel or vacancy year), the administrative action for convening DPCs, in the cases requiring approval of the ACC (ACC cases), could, as such, be initiated at least eight and a half months before the commencement of the vacancy year and, similarly, DPCs in such cases could be held at least four months before the commencement of the vacancy year. This means that there would be a clear period of the first three and a half months of the year immediately preceding the vacancy/panel year available for completion of the ACRs etc., followed by another four and a half months' time for holding of DPCs. The next one month could be devoted to the post-DPC follow-up administrative action by the administrative Ministry/Department. The final three months' period prior to the commencement of the vacancy year could be left for approval of the Competent Authority (the ACC).
5. In terms of the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No.22011/9/89-Eatt(D) dated October 17, 1994 for preparation of select panel, Ministries/Departments may calculate the vacancies for reporting to DPC on financial year basis where ACRs are written financial year-wise and on calendar year basis where ACRs are written calendar year-wise. The items of work Page 12 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30'
13 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) relating to calculation of vacancies arising on various dates in the relevant vacancy year may be completed strictly as per schedule prescribed in the suggested Model Calendar for intimation to the UPSC/DPCs.
6. If there is a need for preparing a second and subsequent panels for the same vacancy/panel year, consideration of the ACRs in such a situation may be restricted to the year upto which these were taken into account while preparing the original select panel. This would ensure application of a uniform yardstick with reference to all such select panels for the same vacancy/panel year.
7. In accordance with the existing instructions, the DPC is required to take into account the existing and clear anticipated vacancies in the concerned grade only. The chain vacancies in the higher grade are taken into account only if an appointment has already been made to the higher grade as on the date of the DPC. Uniesa actual appointment in the higher grade is made, even retirement vacancies in the higher grade are not taken into account as the sante may arise by appointment subsequently. Since in accordance with the suggested Model Calendar being prescribed herein the panels for all the grades may be available on the first day of the vacancy year, it is expected that all chain vacancies may become available during the same vacancy year. Accordingly, for the sake of uniform procedure, it is provided that a DPC for a grade may take into account all clear expected vacancies by retirement etc in the concerned grade as well as chain vacancies on account of retirement ect in the higher grades which can be clearly anticipated in the same vacancy year."
(emphasis supplied{
11. It is clear that the anticipated vacancies were also required to be taken into account when the list of promotion-cum-posting of Group 'B' Gazetted non Industrial Personnel was issued. The anticipated vacancy in this case was due to retirement of Shri Krishna Kumar Verma w.e.f.01.05.2021, i.e. within 13 days from the date of issuance of promotion-cum-posting order of the Page 13 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 14 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) petitioner and other five persons dated 17.04.2021. In such circumstances, clear directions, in line with the said DoP&T instructions, were issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner w.e.f. the date of creation of vacancy on 01.05.2021. The respondents clearly appear to misunderstood the objectives of the said Office Memorandum and despite availability of anticipated vacancy, have not considered the petitioner for in-situ promotion.
Even the subsequent Office Memorandums issued by the DoP&T reiterate to take into consideration the anticipated vacancies with the modification to follow calendar year in place of vacancy year. It was, thus, obligatory on the part of the respondents to determine the vacancy position arising on account of superannuation in the same calendar year. In the case of Union of India and others vs. N.R. Banerjee and others, (1997) 9 SCC 287, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that anticipated vacancies arises in the year are also to be considered for filling up of the posts.
12. We also find that the respondents were adamant not to post the petitioner at Jabalpur and instead keep promoting the juniors of the petitioner against the very same vacancy, which was meant for the petitioner after directives of this Tribunal. The averments made by Page 14 of 17 ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 15 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021) the petitioner in Para 8 of the rejoinder clearly reflect that in June, 2022, firstly the respondents have issued the promotion order in respect of Shri Jagatpal working in 505 Army Base Workshop, Delhi to 506 Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur, who eventually did not join. Thereafter, in September, 2023, posting order of Shri Arun Kumar Tyagi, 510, Army base Workshop Meerut was issued, who superannuated just after one month from the date of his posting order. Immediately thereafter, posting order of one Shri Harvinder Singh, 510 Army Base Workshop was issued in November, 2023 and after retirement of Shri Harvinder Singh in February, 2024, vacancy was kept vacant for eight months and surprisingly, in-situ promotion was granted to Shri Praveen Verma, much junior to the petitioner. Discriminatory treatment given to the petitioner was quite apparent from the original record of the Original Application as the respondents have issued promotion order in respect of Shri Jagat Pal on 18.06.2022 (Annexure A-8 of the Original Application) for the vacancy arising w.e.f.01.07.2022, but different treatment was given to the petitioner on the pretext that the promotion cannot be made against any future vacancies.
Page 15 of 17ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 16 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021)
13. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order dated 08.11.2024 has been passed in compliance with the directives of this Tribunal and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the same, she may challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding and not in this Contempt Petition. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others, (1996) 6 SCC 291. It is by now well-settled under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Act and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India that if it is alleged before this Court that a person has willfully violated its order, it can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act to enquire whether the allegation is true or not and if found to be true it can punish the offenders for having committed `civil contempt' and if need be, can pass consequential orders for enforcement of execution of the order, as the case may be, for violation of which, the proceeding for contempt was initiated. It is of high importance that orders of the Court should be obeyed and willful disobedience to an order of the Court is punishable as a contempt of Court and such disobedience may properly be described as being illegal. We take note of the high-handed attitude of the respondents and their disrespect towards Court's orders.
Page 16 of 17ANUPA 2025.09.1 7 M 16:27:18 MISHRA+05'30' 17 CP 200/63/2023 (in OA 710/2021)
14. In view of the reasons stated above, we hold the respondents guilty for deliberate and willful disobedience of non-compliance of order dated 06.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/710/2023. However, before punishing the respondents, we would like to give an additional opportunity to the respondents to comply with order passed by this Tribunal regarding in-situ promotion of the petitioner as Foreman Part-I at 506, Army Base Workshop Jabalpur w.e.f. the date of creation of vacancy on 01.05.2021 and pass necessary order in this regard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the respondents would be liable to be punished in accordance with law.
15. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this Contempt Petition with liberty to revive in case the compliance is not made within the stipulated period.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am
Page 17 of 17
ANUPA 2025.09.1
7
M 16:27:18
MISHRA+05'30'