Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Shanta Bai vs M/O Railways on 10 April, 2026
1
MA 290/00217/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Miscellaneous Application No. 290/00217/2025
In C.P. No. 80/2025 in OA No. 107/2014
Pronounced on : 10.04.2026
Reserved on : 12.02.2026
CORAM
HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE Dr AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
Smt Shantabai wife of Shri Ambalal, aged about 66 years,
resident of House No. 107, Shastrinagar (Khempura)
Pratapnagar Road, Udaipur-313001, (M-9672902649), last
employed on the post of Safaiwala in the office of Station
Superintendent, Ranapratapnagar, NWR.
.......Applicant
By Advocate : Mr Ajay Kumar Kaushik.
Versus
1. Shri Amitabha, General Manager, North-Western Railways,
Hqrs. Jaipur Zone, Chainpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302017.
2. Shri Raju Bhutada, Divisional Railway Manager, NWR,
Ajmer Division, Ajmer-305001.
......Respondents
By Advocate : Mr B.L. Tiwari.
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI
SUDESH
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=
a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c745e5a539aa4870db2
699074ca1c35d078c, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F3BB788E0FF850A8
SHAKHI
3262E2D1BB72EA7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.04.27 14:18:16+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2
MA 290/00217/2025
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas Heard learned counsel for the parties on condonation of delay alleged to be caused in filing the instant CP.
1.1 As per facts of the case, the petitioner filed OA No. 107/2014 before this tribunal making challenge to memorandum dated 20.06.2013 as also penalty order dated 02.07.2013. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 06.11.2023, this Bench while partly allowing the OA quashed the penalty order and modified the same to the extent that the same shall not adversely affect the pension of the applicant.
1.2 When the above order was not executed, the petitioner filed the instant Contempt Petition (CP) before this tribunal on 25.08.2025. The respondents filed reply to the instant CP wherein objection has been raised with regard to maintainability of the CP being barred by law of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act.
1.3 Before filing a reply to the CP, the petitioner has already filed MA No. 80/2025 seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the CP.
1.4 As per reply to the above MA, the CP filed beyond the period of limitation is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, 2001 (0) AIJEL-SC 20594.
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHISUDESH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c745e5a539aa4870db2 699074ca1c35d078c, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F3BB788E0FF850A8 SHAKHI 3262E2D1BB72EA7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.27 14:18:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 3 MA 290/00217/2025
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this tribunal has no power to ignore the provisions of limitation according to which, a Contempt Petition can be filed within a period of one year from the date of alleged contempt.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are continuously disobeying the direction issued by this bench in OA No. 107/2014, therefore, cause of action is continuing.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, at the outset we would like to mention that Central Administrative Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred by Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf , made the rules called The Central Administrative Tribunal (Contempt of Courts) Rules, 1992 [hereinafter referred to as CAT Contempt of Court Rules]. Rule 22 of these rules provides that in matters not specifically provided for in these rules, the procedure prescribed in the relevant rules of the Tribunal as amended from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to proceedings under these rules. In view of the above enabling provision, we are of the view that provisions with regard to limitation in contempt Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI SUDESH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c745e5a539aa4870db2 699074ca1c35d078c, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F3BB788E0FF850A8 SHAKHI 3262E2D1BB72EA7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.27 14:18:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 MA 290/00217/2025 proceedings are also governed by the provisions of Section 21 of the ATA 1985.
As per provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the limitation period is one year from the date on which final order has been made. However, in cases where appeal or representation has not been decided, application can be made within one year from the date of expiry of period six months of filing of appeal or representation. As per sub section (3) of Section 21, an application may be admitted after a period of one year specified in clause (a) Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within limitation period.
Perusal of the above provisions reveal that the tribunal has been given power to condone the delay caused in filing the OA. Since the CAT Contempt of Court Rules has not specifically dealt with the issue of limitation, we are of the view that provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 shall apply mutatis mutandis to CAT Contempt of Court Rules. According to Section 21 of the Act, this tribunal has been given power to admit an application beyond the period of limitation after satisfying itself that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making application within such period.
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHISUDESH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c745e5a539aa4870db2 699074ca1c35d078c, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F3BB788E0FF850A8 SHAKHI 3262E2D1BB72EA7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.27 14:18:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 MA 290/00217/2025
6. In the instant matter, since no time limit was prescribed for executing the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in OA No. 107/2014, the respondents were expected to execute the order within a reasonable time. However, they did not obey the order after availing sufficient time to comply with the direction. In view of the above we are of the view that there is no delay in filing the instant CP. Assuming that there is delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the so-called delay caused in filing the instant CP. Further assuming that provisions of Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act is applicable in the present case which debars this tribunal from initiating contempt proceedings either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of one year from the date the contempt is alleged to have been committed then also the action of the respondents in not paying pension in terms of direction issued by this tribunal is a recurring cause of action. Therefore, the instant CP cannot be thrown out at this stage on the ground of limitation. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to the limitation to the effect that it has been filed beyond the period of limitation is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the instant CP.
The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pallav Sheth (supra) and Maheshwar Peri v High Court of Judicature at Allahbad, 2016 (0) AIJEL-SC 58953 do not debar the Tribunal to entertain the instant CP.
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHISUDESH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c745e5a539aa4870db2 699074ca1c35d078c, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F3BB788E0FF850A8 SHAKHI 3262E2D1BB72EA7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.27 14:18:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 MA 290/00217/2025 In view of the above, the objection raised by the respondents with regard to limitation is overruled and MA No. 217/2025 stands allowed. While rejecting the objection raised by the respondents, we grant three months' time to comply with the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in OA No. 107/2014 failing which the erring officers shall be dealt with in accordance with the 'The Central Administrative Tribunal (Contempt of Courts) Rules, 1992'.
List the matter on 25.05.2026.
Order dasti to all concerned.
(Amit Sahai) (Rameshwar Vyas)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
ss
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI
SUDESH
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c745e5a539aa4870db2 699074ca1c35d078c, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F3BB788E0FF850A8 SHAKHI 3262E2D1BB72EA7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.27 14:18:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0