Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Singh Rathore vs Naresh Pal Singh, G.M., North Central ... on 9 April, 2026
1
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
ALLAHABAD, this the 09thday of April, 2026
Present:
HON'BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.
HON'BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A.
Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.14 of 2026
IN
Original Application No.330/452 of 2025
Ram Singh Rathore, aged about 61 years (Senior Citizen),
Resident of 18-B/3-A, Shiv Katra Road, Lal Bunglow District-
Kanpur Nagar, Pincode-208007.
............Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Shri Naresh Pal Singh, General Manager, North Central
Railway, Prayagraj-211012.
2. Shri Pushpesh Raman Tripathi, Divisional Railway
Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi-110051.
. . . . . . Respondents/Contemnor.
Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar.
Advocate for the respondents: Mr. M.K. Sharma.
ORDER
14/2026
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
Shakuntala Singh 2
2. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 27.05.2025 passed in OA No. 452/2025. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under:-
"5. The record reflects that the representation dated 30.05.2024 followed by reminder dated 10.09.2024 submitted by the applicant has not been decided by the respondents till now. Therefore, The Competent Authority amongst the respondents is directed to take an appropriate decision on the representation dated 30.05.2024 submitted by the applicant, by way of reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the direction issued by this Tribunal to decide the representation of the applicant by a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period, the same has not been complied with in its true letter and spirit and, therefore, the present contempt petition has been filed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of the compliance affidavit filed on record, submits that the direction issued by this Tribunal has been duly complied with. It is submitted that the representation of the applicant has been considered and a reasoned and speaking order dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure-1of Compliance Affidavit) has been passed by the competent authority, which has been duly communicated to the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that once the representation has been decided by passing a speaking order, the direction of this Tribunal stands fully complied with and no case of contempt survives.
Shakuntala Singh 3
6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents.
7. Upon such consideration, we find that there is no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal. The direction issued by this Tribunal was limited to consideration and decision of the applicant's representation by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period. From the record, it is evident that the competent authority has passed a speaking order dated 02.03.2026 deciding the representation of the applicant. Once such decision has been taken, the direction of this Tribunal stands complied with. In other words, once a decision on the representation has been taken, the cause for invoking contempt jurisdiction does not survive. This Tribunal, in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, has limited scope to examine whether the directions have been complied with and cannot go into the correctness or merits of the decision so taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (Civil Appeal Nos. 1294-96 of 1996) has held that once an order has been passed in purported compliance of the directions, the same cannot be examined in contempt proceedings. Unless the disobedience is wilful and deliberate, contempt cannot be said to be made out. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner, if any, pertains to the correctness of the speaking order, which cannot be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction.
Shakuntala Singh 4
8. Further, in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (2021 SCC OnLine SC 29), the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised with caution and only in cases of clear and wilful disobedience of the court's order. In the facts of the present case, such wilful disobedience is not made out.
9. In view of the above and considering the compliance placed on record, we are of the opinion that no case for proceeding further in the present contempt petition is made out. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped and notices issued to the respondents are discharged.
10. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the speaking order passed by the competent authority, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
11. All pending M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Shakuntala/
Shakuntala Singh