Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Biggan Ram vs Sumeet Kumar Gatt, Sspo, East Div, ... on 6 February, 2023
CP No. 54 of 2021
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Contempt Petition No.54 of 2021
(Out of Original Application No. 781/2020)
This the 6th Day of February, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K.Shrivastava, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Biggan Ram aged about 61 years Son of late Vishwanath Ram, R/o
Village and Post Ghoswan (Saidraja) District Chandauli.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri B.N.Singh
Versus
1. Sumeet Kumar Gatt, the Sr. supdt. of Post offices East, Division
Varanasi.
2. K.K. Sinha, the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri R.K. Srivastava
ORDER
Order delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member-J आवेदक द्वारा श्री बी एन सिंह।
अनावेदक द्वारा श्री आर के श्रीवास्तव।
2. यह अवमानना याचिका इस ट्रिब्यन ू ल के आदे श दिनांक 19.01.2021 के अपालन के संबंध में प्रस्तत ु की गई है । उक्त आदे श मल ू आवेदक संख्या- 781/2020 में पारित किया गया था।
3. उपरोक्त आदे श की कंडिका - 6 में निम्न अनस ु ार निर्देश दिए गए थे-
"6. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant to decide his representation, we are of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this matter pending and it is disposed of finally at the admission stage with the direction to the respondent No.3/Competent Authority amongst the respondents, to consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 19.09.2019 (Annexure A-6 Page 57 of the OA) by a reasoned and speaking order, in the light of the order dated 04.08.2015 passed Page 1 of 6 CP No. 54 of 2021 by C.A.T., Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.408 of 2014, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 24.07.2019 passed in writ petition No.34944 of 2016, in case the aforesaid order is applicable in the case of the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The order so passed shall be communicated to the applicant without any delay."
अतः उपरोक्त आदे श के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि ट्रिब्यन ू ल ने केवल सक्षम अधिकारी/ अनावेदक क्रमांक - 3 को यह निर्देश दिया था कि आवेदक का लंबित अभ्यावेदन दिनांक 19-9-2019 सकारण एवं स्पीकिंग ऑर्डर के माध्यम से निराकरण किया जाए एवं इसके साथ- साथ यह निर्देश भी दिया था कि उपरोक्त अभ्यावेदन का निराकरण केंद्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण चेन्नई बेंच द्वारा मल ू आवेदक संख्या -408/14 में पारित आदे श, जिसे मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा आदे श दिनांक 24-07-2019 से पष्टि ु किया गया है , के प्रकाश में निराकरण किया जाए। समय सीमा भी 3 माह निर्धारित की गई थी।
4. प्रथम पालन प्रतिवेदन अनावेदक की ओर से दिनांक 24.09.2021 को प्रस्तत ु किया गया था, जिसके साथ अनल ु ग्नक क्रमांक- 01 के रूप में आदे श दिनांक 02.09.2021 भी संलग्न किया गया था। तत्पश्चात इस ट्रिब्यन ू ल के तत्कालीन पीठासीन अधिकारी के समक्ष उपरोक्त पालन प्रतिवेदन जब विचारार्थ पेश हुआ तो 27.01.2022 को इस ट्रिब्यन ू ल द्वारा निम्न अनस ु ार आदे श पारित किया गया "We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.
Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
The instant contempt petition alleges non-compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal on 19.01.2021 in O.A. No. 781 of 2020. The limited direction given by this Tribunal while disposing of the O.A., without going into the merits of the case, was a direction for the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant by way of a reasoned and speaking order in the light of an order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. Page 2 of 6 CP No. 54 of 2021 408/2014 which was further confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 24.07.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that this order has not been complied with and the respondents have disposed of the representation without assigning any reasons.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, draws attention to the affidavit of compliance he has filed along with which is annexed an order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, East Division, Varanasi in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal. We have gone through this order. While this order is surely a detailed order, we cannot call it a speaking order to the extent that the respondents nowhere adduced the reasons as to why the decision of the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal, further confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras is not applicablein the case of the applicant. A mere statement that such decision is not applicable will not suffice. In terms of the directions of this Tribunal to pass a reasoned and speaking order, the respondents are under obligation to clearly adduce the reasons for their arriving at a particular decision and it is expected that they will briefly discuss the facts and the reasons recorded in the judgment of the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal before taking a decision in the matter. Accordingly, a further opportunity is allowed to the respondents to file a comprehensive affidavit strictly in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal.
List on 08.03.2022"
5. उपरोक्त आदे श से स्पष्ट है कि ट्रिब्यन ू ल ने यह पाया कि चेन्नई बेंच के उक्त आदे श को, जिसे मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय ने मान्य किया था, उचित तरीके से विचार में ही नहीं लिया गया। केवल इतना कह दे ना पर्याप्त नहीं है कि उपरोक्त निर्णय लागू नहीं होता है ।
ट्रिब्यन ू ल ने पन ु : यह निर्देश दिया कि नवीन सिरे से आदे श पारित किया जाए। दस ू रा पालन शपथ पत्र दिनांक 05.09.2022 को प्रस्तत ु किया गया, जिसके साथ आदे श दिनांक 20.07.2022 की प्रतिलिपि अनल ु ग्नक-01 के रूप में प्रस्तत ु की गई।
"Department of Post O/o Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Varanasi East Division - 221001 Speakng order Page 3 of 6 CP No. 54 of 2021 OA No.330/00781/2020, Shri Biggan Ram I have gone through the order passed by Hon'ble CAT Allahabad Bench on 19.01.2021 In oye number 330/0781/2020 file by Shri Biggan Ram with direction to the respondents especially respondent No.3 (i.e. Cheap Postmaster General up circle Lucknow)/Competent authority among the respondent to consider and decude the pending representation of the applicant dated 19.09.2019 by a reasibed and speaking order.
The case is, in brief, is that Sri Biggan Ram was initially selected for the post of Reserved Trained Pool Postal Assistant in wage Rs.2.75 per hour till regular absorption. Thereafter, pay scale Rs.260-8-300-EB-0340-10-360-12-480 vide the SSPOs Varanasi East memo No.132/15-3/RTP/83 dated 18.03.1983. Thereafter, the said Sri Biggan Ram had been appointed and posted at BHU Post Office under Postal Assistant cadre vide the SSPOs Varanasi memo No.B-2/15-3/RTP/Varanasi dated 30.06.1998 with the direction that the said Sri Biggan Ram has to pass examination for regularization within three year of appointment in six chances. Consequent upon said memo of SSPOs Varanasi East Division dated 30.06.1989, said Sri Biggan Ram had been joined as Postal Assistant on r regular basis on 01.07.1989. After retirement the said Sri Biggan Ram got all the service and pensionary benefits for the day of regularization i.e. 01.07.1988.
Further Shri Biggan has filed a case before the Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad Bench OA No. 330/0781/2021 seeking to Count the past service since initial appointment of March, 1983 for purpose of pension and other benefits (DCRG, leave, In casement, revised pension, III MACPm, Seniority) and same shall be paid 12% interest on the entire sum from the due date.
The Hon'ble CAT Allahabad Bench has passed order in the said case on 19.01.2021 with direction to the respondents specially respondent No.3. (i.e. Chief Postmaster General U.P. Circle Lucknow)/competent authority amongst the respondent to consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 19.09.2019 by a reasoned and speaking order in the light of the order dated 04.08.2015 passed by CAT Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.408/2014. Which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Clourt Madras vide order dated 24.07.2019 passed in writ petition No.34944 Page 4 of 6 CP No. 54 of 2021 of 2016 in case the aforesaid order is applicable in the case of the applicant, within a period of three month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision of this case is not applicable in the case of applicant said Sri Biggan Ram.
In similar case OAs filed by the officials in Hon'ble CAT Cuttak Bench, seeking regularization of the services rendered under RTP scheme were dismissed on 10.04.2003 for the reason that the issue raised has already been decided by the Apex Court on 01.08.1997 in the case of UOI and another VS K. Sivados and others in C.A. No. 80-123 of 1996. It is observed that Apex Court in their judgment dated 01.08.1997 has discussed the case in detail and has rejected the case for grant of Productivity Linked Bounus to RTP personnel. As regards grant of benefit of counting their service as RTP personnel for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the department examination the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment has observed that the relevant rule provides, that the candidates "must have put in at least five years continuous satisfactory service in one or more eligible cadres" and hence pronounced that any service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment in the Cadre cannot count for the purpose of the said rule because it cannot be considered as service in any eligible cadre. (Directorate letter No.44-1/2011-SPB.II dated 12.04.2012 enclosed.) In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble CAT Allahabad Bench and on the basis of above observations, I do not find any ground for considering any service rendered by the RTP candidate prior to his regular appointment as regular service.
Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices East Division, Varanasi -01"
06. आवेदक अभिभाषक का यह तर्क है कि नवीन आदे श भी पर्व ू के आदे श की यथावत पन ु ः प्रस्तति ु है । जबकि विपरीत पक्ष का यह तर्क है कि आदे श का समचि ु त पालन करते हुए नवीन आदे श पारित किया गया है । दोनों आदे शों के अवलोकन से यह विदित होता है कि नवीन आदे श के अंतिम पैरा में चेन्नई बेंच के मल ू वाद का सन्दर्भ दिया गया है तथा आवेदक के पक्ष में कोई ठोस आधार नहीं पाया गया है ।
Page 5 of 6 CP No. 54 of 202107. यदि समग्रता से विचार करें तो वस्तत ु ः इस ट्रिब्यन ू ल का जो आदे श 19.01.2021 को पारित किया गया था, उसकी कंडिका- 6 में मख् ु य रूप से केवल अभ्यावेदन को ही निराकरण करने का निर्देश दिया गया था। मद्रास केंद्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण के आदे श के प्रकाश में उपरोक्त निर्णय लिया जा सकता था। ऐसा नहीं कहा जा सकता कि इस ट्रिब्यन ू ल ने आवेदक का दावा ही स्वीकार कर लिया था और पालन करने का निर्देश दिया था। अभ्यावेदन का निराकरण करना ऐसा विषय है जिसके अंतर्गत या तो अभ्यावेदन स्वीकार होता है अथवा अस्वीकार होता है । संबंधित अधिकारी को दोनो ही बिकल्प होते हैं जिनका प्रयोग उसे प्रकरण की परिस्थितियों के अनस ु ार करना होता है । ऐसा दे खने में आ रहा है कि आवेदक पक्ष के अभ्यावेदन को निराकरण करने का निर्देश होने पर यह समझ लिया जाता है कि निराकरण उसके ही पक्ष में करने का निर्देश दिया गया है । यदि ऐसा होता तो ट्रिब्यन ू ल स्वयं ही आदे श पारित कर सकता था। यदि अभ्यावेदन आवेदक के पक्ष में निराकृत नहीं हुआ है तो इस इसका आशय यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि विपरीत पक्ष ने कोई अवमानना की है । आवेदक के पास यह विकल्प उपलब्ध होता है कि वह चाहे तो अंतिम निर्णय को पथ ृ क से मल ू आवेदन पेश करके चन ु ौती दे सके एवं अपने दावा को ट्रिब्यन ू ल के समक्ष विधिवत स्थापित करके अपने अनक ु ू ल आदे श प्राप्त करने का प्रयास कर सके।
08. अस्तु समग्र रूप से दे खने पर हमारे मत में यदि मल ू आदे श को ध्यान में रखें तो यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि वस्तत ु ः कोई अवमानना पारित की गई है । विधिवत आदे श पारित किया गया है । यदि आवेदक का प्रकरण मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय के प्रकरण से समानता रखता है तो उस आधार पर समानता/ parity का लाभ केवल पथ ृ क से मल ू आवेदक प्रस्तत ु कर किया जा सकता है ।
09. अस्तु उपरोक्त आधार पर यह अवमानना याचिका समाप्त की जाती है तथा अनावेदक गणों को उन्मक् ु त किया जाता है ।
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice B.K. Shrivastava)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
Page 6 of 6