Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Philo Seth vs Sh. Rakesh Mehta on 11 May, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench CP No.754/2010 OA No.851/2009 New Delhi, this the 11th day of May, 2012 Honble Mr. Justice S. C. Sharma, Acting Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Philo Seth (Working in LNJP Hospital) Shop No.20, East Nizamuddin Market, New Delhi. 2. Molly Mathew) (Working in LNJP Hospital) W/o Johny T.P. R/o C-2, Type-III, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110 060. 3. Madhu Khan (Working in LNJP Hospital) Quarter No.A-10, L. N. J. P. Hospital, New Delhi. 4. Prabha Abhey (Working in LNJP Hospital) Quarter No.3, Atul Grove Road, Janpath, New Delhi. 5. Neelam Rani (Working in LNJP Hospital) House No.34, Goupuri, Gali No.117, Ghaziabad. . Petitioners. (By Advocate : Mrs.Rekha Palli with Ms. Amrita Prakash) Versus 1. Sh. Rakesh Mehta Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi 5, Sham Nath Marg, New Delhi. 2. Sh. A. K. Kaushal Director (Admn.) Office of the Medical Superintendent, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi -02. . Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Alka Sharma) : O R D E R (ORAL) : Justice S. C. Sharma, Acting Chairman :
The instant contempt petition has been moved for disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.851/2009 dated 16.09.2009. Twice the contempt proceedings were dropped but later on revived and at this stage the contempt petition has been revived on the application of the petitioners that still the respondents have not complied with the orders.
2. We have taken note of the earlier order passed in the contempt petition on 7.09.2011 and it will be appropriate to reproduce the concluding para of the order, which reads as under:-
7. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that another chance needs to be given to the respondents to make the due payments to the petitioners, including the allowances as well. This would be justified in terms of the order passed in the instant OA No.851/2009. The entitlement of the arrears would be as stated therein from the date of filing the OA i.e. 26.03.2009. This will be done at the earliest possible and latest, within two months from the date of passing of this order. With these directions, the instant CP is closed with a liberty to the petitioners to revive in case any grievance still subsists.
3. The respondents were directed to make out payments to the petitioners including the allowances as well and with this observation the contempt proceedings were closed with liberty to the petitioners to revive the CP in case any grievance still subsists, but as the order was not complied with, hence an application was moved for revival of the contempt petition.
3. As per orders of the Tribunal on 7.09.2011, the Tribunal held that the entitlement of the Petitioners for the arrears, as stated in the OA is from the date of filing of the OA i.e. 26.03.2009 and this part of the order was to be complied with by the respondents and they have not complied with the orders and hence again and again petitioners have to approach the Tribunal for revival of the contempt proceedings.
4. It has been demonstrated by the respondents-contemners that the order passed by the Honble High Court as well as by this Tribunal has been challenged by the respondents before the Honble Supreme Court by filing a SLP. At this stage, it will be appropriate to quote Para 9 of the letter dated 9.05.2012 written by Shri Vipin Garg, Deputy Secretary (H&FW), which reads as under:-
Since, listing of SLP may take some time in the Honble Supreme Court, therefore, it would be appropriate that we plead before the Tribunal during contempt proceedings on 11.05.2012 that we would despite the cheques with the registry of the Tribunal and the cheques be either given to the employees or returned back to the department of H@FW subject to the outcome of the Honble Supreme Court.
5. The respondents themselves admitted that although a SLP has been filed before the Honble Supreme Court but even then they considered it appropriate to plead before this Tribunal during contempt proceeding on 11.05.2012 that they shall deposit the cheques with the Registry of the Tribunal and the Cheques be either given to the employees or returned back to the Department of H&FW subject to the outcome of the SLP filed before the Honble Supreme Court. Hence, from the perusal of this letter two options were given to the Tribunal regarding the cheques either we order to deposit the cheques with the Registry of the Tribunal or the cheques be given to the employees or returned back to the Department. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and appropriate in the interest of justice that the cheques be delivered to the petitioners and we got delivered the cheques to the petitioners. Most of them are present in person except Mrs. Prabha Abhay, Staff Nurse who is present before us and on her behalf cheque has been received by Mrs. Rekha Palli, Advocate for the petitioners and we presume and believe that this is a proper receipt on behalf of Mrs. Prabha Abhay, Staff Nurse and all other petitioners No.2 to 5 are present in person and they have been identified by the petitioners advocate Mrs. Rekha Palli. There appears no chance of impersonation in accepting the cheques and we believe and expect that cheques have been delivered to the rightful persons.
6. However, Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate for the respondents, vehemently argued that as a SLP has been filed before the Honble Supreme Court, hence, under these circumstances either the cheques be kept with the Registry of the Tribunal or be returned to the respondents. But we have done nothing extra which the respondents have not accepted in their order dated 9.05.2012. Three options were given by the respondents regarding the cheques, either we may order to deposit the cheques with the Registry of the Tribunal, to deliver the cheques to the rightful persons or returned the cheques to the Department. We accept the options which are justifiable in the interest of the parties. As the petitioners are pursuing the matter since long, hence it is in their interest that the cheques be delivered to these persons, but all will be subject to the ultimate outcome of the SLP filed before the Honble Supreme Court. At the most we can require to furnish the undertaking on behalf of the petitioners that they will abide by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court and if the Honble Supreme Court ordered otherwise then they will act to the directions of the Honble Supreme Court and after filing this undertaking by the petitioners there appears no justification to continue this contempt petition.
7. For the reasons, as mentioned above, the contempt proceedings are dropped. However it is also provided that within a week, the respondents shall furnish to each of the petitioners the calculation sheet by which the cheques of the specific amount have been prepared in their favour and if aggrieved, they can represent accordingly.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (S. C. Sharma) Member (A) Acting Chairman /pj/