Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Radhey Shyam Meena vs O P Gupta & Others on 21 July, 2022
1
MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 53/2019
in
(CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 02/2019),
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 02/2019
in
(TRANSFERRED APPLICATION NO. 03/2008)
Order reserved on: 15.07.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 21.07.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Radheshyam Meena, aged about 66 years, S/o
Sh. Govind Narayan Meena, R/o 15, Main
Market, Gunawato-Ki-Dhani, Shiv Ram Colony,
Jagatpura-302017 (working on the post of TM
SDOP SG II Jaipur) (Raj.).
2. Jai Mangal Shah S/o Sh. Ram Jaman Shah, R/o
P-5, Sanmati C-1, Jaipur (working on the post of
TM DGP SG II Jaipur) (Raj.).
3. Ram Chandra Swai S/o Sh. Dhanna Lal, R/o PB
69, Jaipur Circle, Jaipur (working on the post of
TM SDOP VDN Jaipur) (Raj.).
4. Nand Lal Bhatia S/o Sh. Thakur Das, R/o C-311,
Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (working on the post
of TM SDOP VDN Jaipur) (Raj.).
5. Ram Ratan Sharma S/o Sh. Bhanu Kumar
Sharma, R/ 8 Krishna Nagar A, Kartarpura,
Jaipur (working on the post of TM SDOP MLY I
Jaipur) (Raj.).
6. Hanuman Sahai Sharma S/o Sh. Birdhi Chand
Sharma, R/o 58, Gayatri Nagar, Jaipur (working
on the post of TM SDOP MLY II Jaipur) (Raj.).
7. Hari Narayan Rajput S/o Sh. Mahadev Singh,
R/o 46, Vardh Vihar, Agra Road, Jaipur (working
on the post of TM SDOP TPN Jaipur) (Raj.).
8. Ram Gopal Rana S/o Sh. Mangal Lal, R/o
Ganesh, C-1 Moti Dungri, Jaipur (working on the
post of TM SDOP Bajaj Nagar Jaipur) (Raj.).
2
MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008)
9. Prakash Chand Meena S/o Sh. Hari Ram Meena,
R/o Plot No. 13, Meena Colony, Near JP Colony,
Jaipur (working on the post of TM SDOP MLY II
Jaipur) (Raj.).
10. Balu Ram Gurjar S/o Sh. Ghasi Lal, R/o P&T
Colony, C/1, C-Scheme, Jaipur (working on the
post of TM SDE FRS L-3 Jaipur) (Raj.).
11. Raman Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Gangadhar Sharma,
R/o 155, Surya Nagar, Jaipur (working on the
post of TM SDOP VDN West Jaipur).
12. Kalu Ram S/o Sh. Kajod Mal, R/o B-117, Arjun
Nagar, Jaipur (working on the post of TM SDOP
Mns. II Jaipur).
13. Prabhu Narain Meena S/o Sh. Sedu Ram, R/o
1/C, 125 Gujar Basti, Jaipur (working on the
post of TM SDOP SG I Jaipur).
14. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal
Sharma R/o 73, Kundan Nagar, Jaipur (working
on the post of TM SDOP MLY I Jaipur).
15. Kanhaiya Lal Yadav S/o Sh. Shri Nanag Ram
Yadav, R/o 214, Jagannathpuri, Jaipur (working
on the post of TM SDOP JTR Jaipur).
16. Suraj Narain Mali S/o Sh. Nanag Ram Mali, R/o
119, SK C-1, Jaipur (working on the post of TM
SDOP BKT Jaipur).
17. Ravindra Kumar Sahni S/o Sh. Badri Narayan,
R/o A 176 Murlipura, Jaipur (working on the post
of TM SDOP JTW Jaipur).
18. Ram Narain S/o Sh. Ram Chandra, R/o 488,
Prabatpuri, Agra Road, Jaipur (working on the
post of TM SDOP VDN Jaipur).
19. Brij Mohan Yadav S/o Sh. Nanag Ram Yadav,
R/o 216, Jagannathpuri, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur
(working on the post of TM SDOP JTW Jaipur).
20. Laxmi Narayan Meena S/o Sh. Pratap Meena,
R/o Suraj Colony, 5 Panna Ki Chowki, Gangapole
Road, Jaipur (working on the post of TM SDOP
ZSG Jaipur).
21. Shiv Shanker S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam R/o Plot
No. 4, Niboon Ka Bagh, Jaipur (working on the
post of TM SDOP ZSG Jaipur).
22. Babu Lal Saini S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai, R/o E-
688 Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (working on the post
of TM SDOP Sanganer, Jaipur).
23. Nathu Lal Mali S/o Balu Ram R/o Mahadev
Nagar, Menawala Sirsi Road, Jaipur (working on
the post of TM SDOP Vaishali Jaipur).
24. Chhotu Lal Meena S/o Sh. Ram Chandra R/o 68
Gulabnagar near Sanganer Railway Station,
3
MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008)
Jaipur (working on the post of TM SDOP DGR
Jaipur).
25. Ram Prakash Sharma S/o Sh. Onkar Sharma
R/o near Adarsh School, Jhotwara, Jaipur
(working on the post of TM SDOP SG I Jaipur).
26. Sitaram Sharma S/o Shridhar, R/o Telecom C-1
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (working on the post of
TM SDOP DGP Jaipur).
27. Kheru Ram Raiger S/o Sh. Bodu Ram Raigar,
R/o Raigoran Ka Mohalla, Jaipur Achrol, Jaipur
(working on the post of TM SDOP ZSG Jaipur).
28. Ramesh Chand Harijan S/o Sh. Nathu Lal R/o
Jawahar Nagar Tila No. 4, Jaipur (working on
the post of TM SDOP ZSG, Jaipur).
29. Dayanand Saini S/o Sh. Bulji Ram, R/o B-42,
Ram Nagar, Jaipur (working on the post of TM
SDOP Vaishali Nagar Jaipur).
30. Kalu Ram Saini S/o Sh. Jhutha Ram R/o Sawa
Nadi Pulia, Bandikui Distt. Dausa (working on
the post of TM SDOP Bandikui JPR).
31. Satya Narayan Kholia S/o Sh. Omilal, R/o Village
Goner, Raiger Mohalla, Goner, Jaipur (working
on the post of TM SDOP ZSG Jaipur).
32. Rameshwar Lal Sain S/o Sh. Kalyan Shah, R/o
Village Dudu PO Devli, Distt. Jaipur (working on
the post of TM SDOP Bagru Jaipur).
33. Boda Ram S/o Sh. Chiman Lal, R/o B-26-27
Hasanpura, Jaipur (working on the post of TM
SDOP Carer Jaipur).
34. Gopal Lal Meena S/o Sh. Kalyan Mal, R/o Bilwa
Khurd, Bassi (working on the post of TM SDOP
BNP Jaipur).
35. Prahalad Sain S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal R/o DD-177
Shahu Nagar, Jaipur (working on the post of TM
SDOP TPN Jaipur).
36. Deep Chand S/o Sh. Ghisi Lal, R/o M-6 Ram
Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur (working on the post of
TM SDOP DGP II Jaipur).
37. Gulab Chand Aheer S/o Sh. Laxmi Narain, R/o
B-81 Vinoba Vihar Jaipur (working on the post of
TM SDOP Shn. Jaipur).
38. Shiv Shanker Gautam S/o Sh. Jharmak Lal, R/o
595 Devi Nagar, Jaipur (working on the post of
TM SDOP Shn. Jaipur).
39. Ajendra Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh, R/o H.No. 64-
65 Hasanpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (working on
the post of TM SDOP Central Jaipur).
4
MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008)
40. Satya Narain Meena S/o Sh. Sugna Ram, R/o D-
5 Shanti Path, Jaipur (working on the post of TM
SDOP Shn. Jaipur).
41. Kana Ram Sharma S/o Sh. Bheru Ram, R/o B-
43, Sitabari, Tonk Road, Jaipur working on the
post of TM SDOP DGR Jaipur).
42. Chauth Mal Mali S/o Sh. Gagaram, R/o Plot No.
47, Sanskar Vihar, Meenawala, Sirsi Road,
Jaipur (working on the post of TM SDOP BAJ NA
Jaipur).
43. Ram Gopal Baruda S/o Sh. Kalyan Mal Sahai,
R/o 49, Sarswati Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur
(working on the post of TM SDOP SH. Jaipur).
44. Shriram Yadav S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai, R/o
Village Sector 9/539 Ke Pass, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur (working on the post of TM SDOP SG II
Jaipur).
45. Rameshwar Lal Bunkar S/o Sh. Narain Lal R/o B-
19, Shriram Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (working on
the post of TM SDOP SG II Jaipur).
46. O.P. Chaubey S/o Sh. Ram Sahai Chaubey R/o
Loyal, Tehsil Bonli Distt. Sawai Madhopur
(working on the post of TM SDOP Boli SMP).
47. Ramesh Chand Daubhi S/o Sh. Ram Pal, R/o
Subhash Nagar Colony, near Railway Colony,
Sawai Madhopur (working on the post of TM
Telegraph Off. SMP).
Respondent no. 1 to 43 presently working on the
post of Telecom Mechanic & respondent no. 44
and 45 are working as Regular Mazdoor in
PGMTD Jaipur and respondent no. 46 & 47 are
working as Telecom Mechanic under Telecom
Distt. Manager, Sawai Madhopur, O/o Principal
General Manager, Telecom, Distt. Jaipur.
... Applicants/Petitioners.
Shri Jai Lodha, counsel for applicants/petitioners.
VERSUS
1. Shri O.P. Gupta, Chief General Manager,
Telecom, Rajasthan Circle, Sarder Patel Marg,
C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001.
2. Shri R.N. Mathur, Principal General Manager,
Telecom, M.I. Road, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur-
302001.
5
MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008)
3. Sh. Pushkar Srivastav, the Telecom District
Manager (TDM), Sawai Madhopur-322001.
...Respondents.
Shri T.P. Sharma, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The applicants/petitioners had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2988/2006 against the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, which was later on transferred to this Bench of the Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 03/2008, seeking reliefs that the respondents be directed to allow the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to them on completion of 16 years of service including the restructure cadre, and thereafter to fix the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.12.1998 after completion of 26 years of service. Besides the said prayer, further prayer was for quashing and setting aside the circular dated 20th April, 1999. It was their submission that the same be done in accordance with the rules as has already been held by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 09.08.2000 in OA No. 1966/1999 and thereafter affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Writ 6 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) Petition No. 14744/2001 vide its judgment dated 16.10.2003.
2. The petitioners state that this Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the matter, (TA No. 03/2008), finally on 22.09.2011 at para 11 has held as under: -
"11. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20th April 1999 (Annexure A/1). The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants in the light of the order dated 09.08.2000 passed by the C.A.T., Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 1966/1999 and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Writ Petition No. 14744/2001 vide its judgment dated 16.10.2003."
3. It is the claim of the petitioners that thereafter the respondents had challenged the said order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by way of filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5109/2012 and the Hon'ble High Court had disposed of the said Writ Petition vide its order dated 03.10.2017, which reads as under:
"The ground on which the petition was admitted, was pendency of the SLP which was permitted to be withdrawn on 03.09.2014, observing as under: -
"Mr. R.D. Agrawala, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, placing reliance on an unreported order dated 24.09.2013 of this Court in S.L.P. © No. 33282 of 2009 titled 7 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) B.S.N.L. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. submits that the grounds urged before the High Court in the Writ Appeals by the appellants herein were not considered and answered though urged for consideration before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the writ appeals. Therefore, he seeks permission to withdraw these appeals with liberty to the appellants herein to file an appropriate review petition before the High Court within four weeks from today.
Permission sought for is granted. If such a review petition is filed, the High Court is requested to consider it without reference to the period of limitation and dispose of on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible."
In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to revive in case of difficulty."
4. The petitioners state that the respondents have taken no action to comply with the aforesaid orders passed by this Bench of the Tribunal. Thus, since sufficient time had elapsed, they served a legal notice to the respondents for not complying with the orders of this Tribunal. Applicants/petitioners have then filed Contempt Petition (C.P. No. 02/2019) under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Contempt of Courts (C.A.T.) Rules, 1992 stating that a clear contempt case has been made out as the respondents have disregard towards the orders of this Bench of the Tribunal and, thus, prayed that the 8 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) respondents are liable to be punished for contempt of court as they have deliberately flouted the orders of this Tribunal. The applicants/petitioners have also filed M.A. No. 53/2019 praying for condonation of delay in filing the present Contempt Petition.
5. After issue of notices to respondents in the present M.A. No. 53/2019, respondents have filed their reply to the said Misc. Application for condonation of delay in filing the present Contempt Petition stating that the present Contempt Petition has not been filed by the applicants/petitioners within limitation. No sufficient and reasonable grounds have been disclosed for condonation of delay in filing the Contempt Petition. In view of provisions of law which is prevailing, as the Contempt Petition is not filed within the prescribed time, the same deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches reserving their rights to file additional reply if the matter is to be heard on merits.
6. From perusal of order-sheets of the case file, it is seen that this Tribunal vide its order dated 24.01.2019, was pleased to issue notices to respondents only in M.A. No. 53/2019 filed by the 9 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) applicants/petitioners praying for condonation of delay in filing the Contempt Petition. However, no notice has so far been issued to the respondents in the Contempt Petition.
7. After hearing the parties on 15.07.2022, it is seen that the orders passed by this Tribunal dated 22.09.2011 in T.A. No. 03/2008 were challenged by the respondents before Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by way of filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5109/2012 and Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 03.10.2017 disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty to revive in case of difficulty, as the Hon'ble High Court had observed that the ground on which the petition was admitted, was pendency of the SLP, which was permitted to be withdrawn on 03.09.2014 as noted above. But it seems that after disposal of the said Writ Petition, more than four years have elapsed, the same has not been revived for which a liberty was granted that 'the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to revive in case of difficulty'. Neither of the parties have brought on record any document or stated that said Writ Petition has been revived or not, and have also not disclosed any further status of the Writ Petition. Besides this, it 10 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) seems that no review petition has been filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, as has been permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 03.09.2014 when the SLP was permitted to be withdrawn, as no such document was produced either by the respondents nor by the petitioners, and if so filed, no present status of the same has been disclosed, which clearly shows that the judgments/orders of this Tribunal has attained its finality.
8. The question, which requires to be considered is whether M.A. No. 53/2019 filed by the applicants/petitioners for condonation of delay in filing C.P. No. 02/2019, which was filed on 16.01.2019, is within the period of limitation as per rules.
9. As far as the question of limitation in filing Contempt Petition is concerned, the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide its judgment dated 11.04.2018 passed in Contempt Petition No. 377/2018 in the case of M. Santhi vs. Mr. Pradeed Yadav & Anr. has discussed the ratio of various judgment including that of Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and Others, 11 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549, and in para 29 has observed as under: -
"29. The High Court's cannot invoke the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, in all the cases by entertaining the contempt application beyond the period of one year, so as to dilute or eradicate the law prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. All contempt applications ought to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High Court on exceptional circumstances, on arriving a conclusion that a gross injustice to the society or the case is of public importance, then the inherent powers provided under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, can be exercised without reference to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A litigant may come out with an interpretation that an injustice is caused to all the orders or judgements passed by the High Courts. Such a general proposition, as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner deserves no merit consideration. No doubt, the litigants approach the Court to get justice, that does not mean that all the contempt applications have to be entertained after a period of one year prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Generalisation in this regard can never be encouraged. What exactly the circumstances warranting interference under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has to be decided judiciously and applying the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in each and every case. General application in this regard is certainly impermissible and Courts have to interpret these provisions in a pragmatic way than in a general manner. In other words, the principles of constructive interpretation is to be adopted while interpreting the period of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by citing the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."12
MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008)
10. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, prescribes as under:-
"20. Limitation for actions for contempt No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."
It is clear that all the Contempt Applications ought to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No doubt, the litigants approach the Court to get justice, that does not mean that all the Contempt Applications have to be entertained after a period of one year prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Generalization in this regard can never be encouraged. What exactly the circumstances warranting interference under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has to be decided judiciously and applying the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in each and every case. General application in this regard is certainly impermissible and Courts have to interpret these provisions in pragmatic way than in general manner. In other words, the principles of constructive 13 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) interpretation is to be adopted while interpreting the period of limitation under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act as well as Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we are not inclined to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants/petitioners that the applicants/petitioners were scattered over several places and it was difficult for all of them to join together and so there was a delay in filing the Contempt Petition, but no cogent reasons are given for delay to be condoned in filing the present Contempt Petition.
11. In the present case, after going through the pleadings, it transpires that for non-compliance of the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 03/2008 and where the order of this Tribunal has attained its finality when the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench has passed its order on 03.10.2017 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5109/2012, as per rules, the petitioners should have approached this Tribunal, within one year of passing of the orders in the said T.A. or in any case, within one year from the date of order dated 03.10.2017 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. We have 14 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) not seen that any interim order staying the operation of the order of this Tribunal was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. If that is true, then from the date of order dated 22.09.2011 passed in T.A., the petitioners should have approached this Tribunal by way of filing Contempt Petition by 21.09.2012. Further, if the period of limitation of one year is calculated from the date of passing of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 03.10.2017, the Contempt Petition should have been filed by the applicants/petitioners by 02.10.2018 but from the record, it is seen that the same has been filed only on 16.01.2019. Be that as it may, it was the duty of the petitioners to come before this Tribunal within the period of limitation for filing contempt petition. None of the reasons given by the petitioners for condoning the delay in filing contempt petition are convincing. There is no provision under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to condone the delay in filing the Contempt Petition. Therefore, we are of the view that the Contempt Petition is not maintainable since the same is filed beyond the period of limitation.
12. In view of the discussions and observations made herein-above, Misc. Application No. 53/2019 for 15 MA No. 53/2019 in (CP No. 02/2019), CP No. 02/2019 in (TA No. 03/2008) condonation of delay in filing the Contempt Petition is dismissed.
13. Since the Misc. Application for condonation of delay itself has been dismissed, we are not inclined to issue notices to the respondents in the Contempt Petition as no notice has been issued to the respondents in Contempt Petition so far. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/