Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shamsher Bahadur Singh vs Col. Rakesh Kamra Command Work Er Allbd on 14 March, 2022
1
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Allahabad, this the 14th day of March, 2022
Contempt Application No. 35 of 2018
In
Original Application No. 277 of 2011
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member-(Administrative)
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member-(Judicial)
Shamsher Bahadur Singh, S/o late Nand Kishore Singh, r/o House No.
125-B, Tulsi vihar Colony, Navapur, Basahi, Varanasi.
...........Petitioner
By Advocate: Shri Venu Gopal
Versus
1. Colonel Rakesh Kamra, Command Works Engineer, Allahabad.
2. K.V. Reddy, Garrison Engineer (West), Allahabad.
------------Respondents
By Advocate: Shri L.M. Singh.
ORDER
Deliverd by Hon'ble Mr.Tarun Sridhar, Member-A:
We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.
2. Shri Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present. 2
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.277 of 2011 has been fully complied with and hence, nothing sustains in the contempt petition. He draws attention to the affidavit of compliance which he has filed on 06.02.2019 wherein a categorical averment is made that whatever dues were directed to be paid to the petitioner have been released to him. While disposing of the aforesaid OA, the limited direction of the Tribunal to the respondents is that they would pay to the petitioner his entitled the salary except for a limited period. Learned counsel for the respondents confirms that salary has been paid to the applicant. While agreeing to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondents are yet to be release the gratuity and other retiral dues of the petitioner such as leave encashment etc. However, he informs that he has already filed a separate OA to claim his dues. Since the direction of the Tribunal in the aforesaid OA was limited to the payment of salary and rest of the matter is already under challenged in the separate OA, we hold that the contempt proceedings should be closed.
4. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. Notices are discharged.
5. All the associated MAs are also disposed of.
(Pratima K Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member(Judicial) Member(Administrative)
/RKM/