Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Surendra Yadav vs H K Bhandari on 5 April, 2024
1 CCP No.06/2015
(in OA 67/2004)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Civil Contempt Petition No.06/2015
(in OA 67/2004)
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 05th day of April, 2024
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Surendra Yadav, S/o Shri R.L. Yadav, aged about 40 years, R/o Village
Karondi, Gokalpur, Jabalpur (M.P.) 482001 -Petitioner
(By Advocate - Shri Manoj Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms.
Anuja Sharma)
Versus
1. Shri H.K. Bhandari, Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Service,
Jabalpur Zone, Bhagat Marg, Jabalpur - 482001 (MP).
2. Shri T. Santosh, Garrison Engineer (East), Military Engineering Service,
Jabalpur - 482001 (MP) -Respondent
(By Advocate - Shri N.K. Mishra)
ORDER
By Kumar Rajesh Chandra, AM.-
This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non compliance of the order dated 06.05.2005 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.67 of 2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though during the pendency of this Contempt Petition, the respondents have reinstated the Page 1 of 3 2 CCP No.06/2015 (in OA 67/2004) petitioner on 17.02.2023 and also paid the arrears of pay and allowances for the period between the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, but the interest for the intervening period has not been paid to the petitioner. He brought our attention to para 7 of our order dated 06.05.2005, wherein there were directions to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no deliberate contempt on behalf of the respondents and the order of this Tribunal has been complied with in letter and spirit, which is evident from the compliance report filed on 29.11.2023. He further averred that order passed by this Tribunal dated 06.05.2005 does not speak to grant any interest to the petitioner.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. We find that against the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.67/2004, the respondents have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.1793/2007 in which, the effect and operation of our order was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order Page 2 of 3 3 CCP No.06/2015 (in OA 67/2004) dated 21.02.2007. On 30.10.2014, the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition for non-prosecution. However, the Writ Petition was subsequently restored on 03.07.2015. Finally, the aforesaid Writ Petition No.1793/2007 was dismissed on 26.04.2022.
6. The compliance report filed by the respondents on 29.11.2023 reflects that immediately after dismissal of their Writ Petition, the respondents have rejoined the petitioner on duty on 17.02.2023 and have also paid arrears for the period, i.e. the date of his termination till reinstatement. We find that our order dated 06.05.2005 also does not explicitly say to grant interest to the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any such reasoning to that effect, the word "with all consequential benefits", does not automatically entitle the petitioner for payment of interest. Since the respondents have resorted to the remedy available in due process of law, any willful, intentional disobedience on the part of the respondents is not made out.
7. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed and the respondents are discharged from the notice of contempt.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 3 of 3