Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad

Ram Chandra Prasad vs Sri Rima Parasar on 15 March, 2013

      

  

  

 Reserved on 08.03.2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********

Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 100 of 2012
In
Original Application No. 401 of 2010


Allahabad this the _15th day of _March, 2013


Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J
Honble Ms. Jayati Chandra, Member-A


Ram Chandra Prasad, Resident of village Kharkkauli, Post Office/-Gontha, Distt. Mau, presently posted as Postal Assistant, Head Post Office, Azamgarh.
Petitioner
By Advocate: In person
		     
Vs.

1.	Sri Rima Parasar, D.G. Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New 	Delhi.

2.	Sri Coln. Kamlesh Chandra, Chief Post Master General, U.P. 	Circle, Lucknow. 	

3.	Sri Anil Kumar, Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, 	Gorakhpur.

4.	Sri Y.N. Diwedi, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, 	Azamgarh Division.

5.	Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Counsel for the respondent 1 to 4 	C/o Sri Rima Parasar, D.G. Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, 	New Delhi. 	
Opposite Parties
By Advocate: Sri Saurabh Srivastava 

O R D E R

By Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J Case called out. The petitioner is present in person. Shri Saurabh Srivastava, Counsel is present for the opposite parties.

2. Heard, the petitioner-in person and Counsel for the opposite parties on the maintainability of this Contempt Petition. He has argued that despite the specific direction of this Tribunal to the respondents, they have not cancelled the transfer order of applicant. Hence, they have committed the contempt of Order of this Tribunal, and they are liable to be punished after issuing show cause notice to them.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed this Contempt Petition at the stage of admission itself stating that no such direction has been given by this Tribunal either in O.A. No. 401 of 2010 or in Review Application No. 69 of 2010, moved subsequently against the order passed in the O.A. Admittedly, the petitioner has not annexed the copy of Order passed in O.A. No. 401 of 2010, but there is a reference of that O.A. in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 69 of 2010. The Honble Member of this Bench vide Order dated 10.02.2011 has dismissed the Review Application, which has been filed by the petitioner in the present Contempt Petition.

4. After hearing the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties and after perusal of the documents on record, we come to the conclusion that neither any direction has been given to the respondents by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 401 of 2010, cancelling the transfer order nor any direction has been given in the Review Application No. 69/10 for which the opposite parties may be summoned for committing Contempt of the Order of this Tribunal as both the Original Application and the Review Application have been dismissed by this Tribunal.

5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that this Contempt Petition is not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed.



	(Ms. Jayati Chandra)			(Justice S.S. Tiwari)
	    Member  A                                      Member - J    

/M.M/




3