Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M/O Shipping vs Arbind Kumar Choundhary on 13 September, 2023
1 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
CP/310/00005/2020 & MA/310/00014/2020
in OA/310/00768/2018
th
Dated Wednesday the 13 day of September Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
CP 5/2020 :-
Arbind Kumar Choudhary,
Engineer & Ship Surveyour cum DDG (Tech),
Mercantile Marine Department,
Anchorgate Building, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600001. ....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Giridhar & Sai
Vs
1.Shri. Gopala Krishna,
The Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping,
1, Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110001.
2.Shri. Amitabh Kumar,
The Director General of Shipping,
Directorate General of Shipping,
9th Floor, Beta Building,
I-Think Techno Campus,
Kanjur Marg (East),
Mumbai 400042.
3.Shri. Aravind Saxena,
The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
2 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020
New Delhi 110069.
4.Dr. C. Chandramouli,
The Secretary (Personnel),
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi 110001. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
MA 14/2020 :-
1.Union of India,
rep by its Secretary, M/o. Shipping,
No. 1, Parliament Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
2.The Director General of Shipping,
D.G.Shipping, 9th Floor, Kanjur Marg (East), Mumbai 400042.
3.The Chairman, UPSC,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi 110069.
4.The Secretary (Personnel), DoPT,
North Block, New Delhi 110001. ....Applicants/Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
Vs
Arbind Kumar Choudhary ....Respondent/Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Giridhar & Sai
3 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) This CP has been filed by the applicant in OA 768/2018 against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this Tribunal, dt. 30.01.2019.
2. The order was passed on 30.01.2019 in the OA 768/2018 and direction was issued as under, "7. We have considered the matter. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed on ad hoc basis from 07.04.2011. The applicant is short of qualifying service by two months only even in terms of his regular service. However, if the ad hoc service is added, the applicant would be found to fulfil the requirement of qualifying service. It is not clarified when the respondents sent the proposal to DoPT/UPSC for relaxation of qualifying service. Since the impugned order is dated 04.04.2018, it is presumed that a proposal in this regard would have been sent before that date. Clearly, no decision has been taken by the competent authority despite a lapse of a period of over nine months.
8. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the applicant's case could be considered provisionally in the ensuing DPC and he could be considered for promotion if found fit subject to relaxation of the qualifying service by the competent authority. We are also of the view that at this stage, there is no cause of action for the applicant to challenge the rule itself as his grievance is mainly about the manner of application of the rule rather than the legality of the rule itself. Respondents R3 & R4 are therefore, directed to take a view on the proposal for relaxation of qualifying service in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of their policy regarding relaxation as also decisions in precedent cases within a period of one month. The applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh OA, if any grievance subsists thereafter and if so advised."
Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondents have not complied with the direction issued by this Tribunal in its letter and true spirit.
3. After notice, Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC has appeared for the respondents and submits that they have already moved with various MAs for extention of time and subsequently, by MA 14/2020, they have, by way of affidavit, given all the correct facts according to the respondents and stated as 4 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020 under :-
"5. It is submitted that the order dated 30.01.2019 of Hon'ble CAT, Chennai Bench was to consider Shri Arbind Kumar Choudhary provisionally in ensuing DPC subject to relaxation of the qualifying service by the Competent Authority. The said order was issued, presuming that the DPC for promotion to the post of Dy. Chief Surveyor would be conducted by UPSC. The DPC was then scheduled to be held by UPSC on 1.02.2019, was was postponed to 07.02.2019. The DPC proposal had since been returned and as of now, there is no proposal for convening the DPC, in view of the requirement of revival of the post. It is also stated that Shri. A. K. Choudhary, the applicant, does not fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down in Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Dy. CS, in two counts for eligibility year 2019; (a) shortfall in qualifying service (b) shortfall in experience. Due to these reasons, as explained above, it is not possible to convene the DPC at this stage. However, as per our understanding, there is no explicit direction by the Hon'ble CAT to convene a DPC. Hon'ble CAT had directed to include the name of Shri. Arbind Kumar Choudhary, E&SS for the DPC as the interim measures pending consideration his petition for grant of relaxation to the provisions of qualifying service. This interim directive presumed that DPC would take place to consider other candidates senior to him for promotion. Since that presumptive itself has been cancelled, the interim directions cannot be followed.
.......
7. For the reasons stated in above paras, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to relax or remove the time period granted to implement the order made in OA No. 768/2018 dated 30.01.2019, and thus render justice."
4. Also respondents have further contended that the applicant prayed following reliefs in the OA :-
"A. declare that clause (ii) of clause 8 of the Recruitment Rules (Annexure) as regards the post of Deputy Chief Surveyor as not valid and thereby strike out the same and to declare that the applicant is eligible to be promoted for the said post.
B. direct the 3rd respondent to relax the applicant's shortage of seniority of one month and 3 days and to include his name in the list of candidates eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Surveyor and pass such further or other orders as necessary to meet the ends of justice.".
The relevant portion of the order dt. 30.01.2019 is extracted as below:-
"3. The applicant is eligible to be promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Surveyor in terms of his qualification etc although he is short of the requisite qualifying service by two months only. ........5 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020
4. The grievance of the applicant is that a DPC is scheduled to be held for the said promotion on 01.02.2019 and the applicant is out of the reckoning only for the reason that no decision has been taken by the respondents regarding relaxation of qualifying service. It is submitted that if the DPC is allowed to be held without considering the name of the applicant, the applicant's right to be considered for promotion would be infringed. Accordingly, the applicant would seek the intervention of this Tribunal at this stage for a direction that the applicant's name should be considered provisionally subject to the said relaxation being granted by the competent authority.
..........
7. We have considered the matter. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed on ad hoc basis from 07.04.2011. The applicant is short of qualifying service by two months only even in terms of his regular service. However, if the ad hoc service is added, the applicant would be found to fulfil the requirement of qualifying service. It is not clarified when the respondents sent the proposal to DoPT/UPSC for relaxation of qualifying service. Since the impugned order is dated 04.04.2018, it is presumed that a proposal in this regard would have been sent before that date. Clearly, no decision has been taken by the competent authority despite a lapse of a period of over nine months.
8. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the applicant's case could be considered provisionally in the ensuing DPC and he could be considered for promotion if found fit subject to relaxation of the qualifying service by the competent authority. We are also of the view that at this stage, there is no cause of action for the applicant to challenge the rule itself as his grievance is mainly about the manner of application of the rule rather than the legality of the rule itself. Respondents R3 & R4 are therefore, directed to take a view on the proposal for relaxation of qualifying service in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of their policy regarding relaxation as also decisions in precedent cases within a period of one month. The applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh OA, if any grievance subsists thereafter and if so advised."
5. Respondents have relied upon the various documents which is annexed to their index of typeset of documents filed on 08.12.2023. At para 10 of the said document, the respondents state as under:-
"10. The Directorate General of Shipping issued a letter to the Ministry of Shipping, vide No. PB-12-DPC(4)/2017-Part-I dated 23.07.2019 stating that the post of "Deputy Chief Surveyor-cum-Sr. Deputy Director General [Tech]" is a statutory post under Section 09 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, as amended from time to time. Vide letter dated 19.11.2019 [Exhibit - R-3], however, the Ministry of Shipping, in accordance with the OM No. 7(1)/E-Coord-I/2017 dated 12.04.2017 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, 6 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020 New Delhi [Exhibit - R-4], advised to submit proposal for revival of posts and review the RRs before submitting the formal proposal for filling up of the posts. Accordingly, the proposal for revival of 8 posts of Dy. CS was issued to the Ministry on 30.11.2019 [Exhibit - R-5]. The proposal has been issued ot the Department of Expenditure by MOS on 12.06.2020. Now, the Ministry has requested to submit the financial implications on revival of the posts. In response, the matter was re-examined by the Directorate General of Shipping and a proposal with detailed Note for review of deemed abolished posts including the post of Dy. CS, being the statutory posts giving position and provision of various acts, has been issued on 22nd September, 2020 [Exhibit- R- 6]."
6. The respondents further contended that as per the direction of this Tribunal, correspondence has been made by letter dt. 20.12.2019 in respect of grant of relaxation to condone the shortfall of residency period of 08 days as on 01.04.2018 by the applicant. Subsequently, another correspondence dt. 19.11.2019 before filling up the post of Deputy Chief Surveyor-cum-Senior Deputy Director, Senior Director Chief (Technical) in DGS which is extracted as under:-
" I am directed to refer to your letter No. PB-16-CTC(9)/2018 dated 26/8/2019 on the subject mentioned above and to say that before filling up the 8 posts of Deputy Chief Surveyor-cum-Senior Deputy Director General (Technical) in DGS the following actions are required to be completed on your part:
i. Review of RRS and its publication after following the procedural formalities.
ii. Initiate action for revival of said 8 vacant posts with MoF and iii. Thereafter send formal proposal to the Ministry for filling up these posts
2. Hon'ble CAT vide its order dated 17/7/2019 has granted time to the respondents (M/o Shipping, DGS, UPSC and DoP&T) up to 03/09/2019 to comply the order of Tribunal. The action to be initiated by the DGS, before filling up the said posts, may be apprised to the Tribunal. The timeline of the completion of the above task may also be apprised.
3. It is, therefore, requested to give above information to Hon'ble CAT in the above case through filing of a M.A. and seek advice of Ministry of Law, Mumbai Sectt. DGS may follow the advice of Ministry of Law so as to avoid any adverse orders in future."7 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020
7. The respondents further referred to the OM dt. 12.04.2017 issued by the DoPT on the subject "Compendium of instructions for Creation, Revival, Continuation and Transfer of posts." wherein column 5.1.c reads as under :-
"5.1 Deemed Abolition & Revival of posts:
c. Statutory posts, the name and level/pay scale of which is specifically provided for in an Act of Parliament, are exempted from falling in the category of 'deemed abolished' on remaining vacant for a period of more than 2 years. Only the posts mentioned in Statute may be considered Statutory, not their support staff."
8. Accordingly, by letter, dt. 28.11.2019, the proposal for revival of the 08 sanctioned posts of Deputy Chief Surveyor-cum-Senior Deputy Director General of Shipping (Technical), narrating the details of occurence of vacancies from 2012 to 2017. The same was pending for further approval before the competent authority. At that time, all these 8 posts were lying vacant. Therefore, the respondents contended that on the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant that the DPC which was scheduled to be held for promotion on 01.02.2019. Thereby, vide order, dt. 30.01.2019, this Tribunal had directed the respondents to include the name of the applicant in the list of the candidates who are placed in the zone of consideration and further to consider the case of the applicant for grant of relaxation. However, neither the DPC, dt. 01.02.2019, nor the subsequent DPC, dt. 07.02.2019, was held. Now, the matter is pending for approval of the revival of 8 posts. In view of the same, no contempt is made out. If at all the appilcant feels aggrieved, he can seek the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
8 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. The main submission of the learned counsel for contempt petitioner is that the Court's direction cannot go in vain. The direction is so clear and that has to be complied with. Morever, the stand taken by the respondents in their MA No. 14/2020 that cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on the ground that on earlier two occassions, by filing MAs, the department sought for extension of time to implement the order. Learned counsel for contempt petitioner has also contended that the said posts are statutory posts, the same cannot be abolished as per Section 9 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. Learned counsel for contempt petitioner has also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :-
i. Judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, dt. 03.08.1995, in Appeal No. 89 of 1994, in the case of Pallav Goswami Vs. Smt. Ava Rani Sinha reported in 1995 SCC OnLine Cal 253, wherein it was observed as under:-
"8. The application of the Petitioner, Ava Rani Sinha for temporary permit was once rejected by the S.T.A. by Resolution dated 24,11.93 on the ground that the relevant route coincided with the Calcutta-Digha route, which was a notified route, covered by the situation under Section 104 of the Act. The Petitioner's application for. permanent permit had also been rejected by the S.T.A. by the Resolution dated 23/6/94 for the second time on the same very ground that the concerned route is a part of the notified route, Calcutta to Digha, giving the clearest and conclusive indication that there was no other ground for refusing to grant permit to the Petitioner for the route in question. The lone ground for which her applications for temporary permit and permanent permit had been rejected by the S.T.A. twice by the aforesaid Resolutions dated 24/11/93 and 23/6/94 respectively had already been quashed by the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16th March, 1994, which stands final, unalterable and absolute, in the circumstances indicated above. Since no other ground for refusal to grant (permanent) permit to the Petitioner could be made out by the S.T.A,., it seems to us that he would be left with no other alternative but to grant permanent permit to the Petitioner for the route in question. But the question as to whether he should be held guilty of Contempt of Court for rejecting the Petitioner's 9 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020 application for permanent permit for the route in question, in compliance with the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16th March, 1994, the same being, what it is, is a matter which is yet to be considered and decided by the court below, and should not be pre-judged by us at this stage. "
ii. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 421-424 of 2016, in the case of State Bank of India and ors Vs. Dr. Vijay Mallya, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 826, wherein it was held that, "13. It is, thus, well settled that apart from punishing the contemnor for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. The approach may require the court to pass directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by declaring said transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to see that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him.It is precisely for these reasons that the direction to have vacant possession delivered to the rightful claimant was passed by this Court in Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty & Ors. 3 Mere passing of an order of punishment as stated by this Court in Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr.5 would not be enough or sufficient. In a given case, to meet the ends of justice, the concept of purging of the contempt would call for complete disgorging of all the benefits secured as a result of actions which are found by the court to be contumacious."
iii. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4108 of 2007 in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddiah reported in (2007) 7 SCC 689, wherein it was held that, "31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. "
iv. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 10 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020 624 of 2020 in the case of HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited Vs. Pradees Shantipershad Jain and ors, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 827, wherein it was observed that, "10. Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the respondents that there is no wilful disobedience as they have no sufficient funds to deposit the shortfall amount and despite their best efforts, they are unable to get the requisite funds to comply with the order passed by this Court is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that all these submissions were made earlier in I.A. No. 68388/2021 seeking exemption from deposit of shortfall pursuant to order dated 06.05.2021 and the same have not been accepted by this Court and vide order dated 02.07.2021 their application for exemption has been dismissed. Thereafter, it shall not be open for the respondents to repeat and make the same submissions again and again. The respondents cannot be permitted to make the same submissions which have not been accepted and/or rejected by this Court earlier. Repetitive submissions which have not been accepted earlier by court that itself is a wilful disobedience and tantamount to contempt and it shows the conduct on the part of the contemnors.
11. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the respondents to deposit the shortfall amount so as to maintain a sum of USD 60 million in their Corporation Bank account. The first order passed by the learned Single Judge in their application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 is passed in the year 2014 and even the same has been restored by this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.08.2020 and thereafter, further directions have been issued specifically directing the respondents to deposit the shortfall vide order dated 06.05.2021 and thereafter their application for exemption from depositing the shortfall amount has been dismissed by this Court. Despite the above, the respondents have failed to deposit the shortfall amount and therefore, they have rendered themselves liable for suitable punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedience of not only the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 19.08.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 5158/2016 but also for wilful disobedience and noncompliance of order passed by this Court dated 06.05.2021 in the present application. The defence on behalf of the respondents lack bona fides. To maintain the rule of law and majesty of justice and so as to see that the faith and confidence of the people in judiciary is maintained, this is a fit case to entertain the present contempt proceedings and to punish the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act."
11. Therefore, learned counsel for contempt petitioner prays that if at all the Courts come to the conclusion that contempt is not made out then further direction has to be issued to the respondents to comply with the order of this 11 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020 Tribunal in its letter and true spirit.
12. However, on the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has opposed the said relief on the ground that the applicant filed the OA with the following prayer :-
"A. declare that clause (ii) of clause 8 of the Recruitment Rules (Annexure) as regards the post of Deputy Chief Surveyor as not valid and thereby strike out the same and to declare that the applicant is eligible to be promoted for the said post.
B. direct the 3rd respondent to relax the applicant's shortage of seniority of one month and 3 days and to include his name in the list of candidates eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Surveyor and pass such further or other orders as necessary to meet the ends of justice."
and the Tribunal had ordered in favour of the applicant on 30.01.2019 and direction was given as under, "8. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the applicant's case could be considered provisionally in the ensuing DPC and he could be considered for promotion if found fit subject to relaxation of the qualifying service by the competent authority. We are also of the view that at this stage, there is no cause of action for the applicant to challenge the rule itself as his grievance is mainly about the manner of application of the rule rather than the legality of the rule itself. Respondents R3 & R4 are therefore, directed to take a view on the proposal for relaxation of qualifying service in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of their policy regarding relaxation as also decisions in precedent cases within a period of one month. The applicant shall be at liberty to file a fresh OA, if any grievance subsists thereafter and if so advised."
13. When the DPC could not be held because of the reason that the posts were abolished automatically, hence proposal for revival of the said posts has been forwarded. It is further contended that the persons who are there in the zone of consideration for promotion since 2012 onwards though DPC was scheduled twice, ie., on 01.02.2019 and 07.02.2019, however it could not be held. Subsequently, there was no approval received from the competent Ministry. 12 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020 Hence, DPC could not be held. In view of the same, the respondents pray for dismisssal of the CP.
14. It is not in dispute that the DPC was fixed on 01.02.2019 and subsequently on 07.02.2019. Thereafter, the proposal was sent for revival of 8 posts which were lying vacant from 2012 onwards.
15. Though the learned counsel for applicant vehemently argued on the issue that these posts are statutory posts and the same cannot be abolished as per the sub-clause 'c' of clause 5.1 of the DoPT OM dt. 12.04.2017 as well as in accordance with the executive instructions. It is to be noted that though all posts are created by statutes but the same cannot be said to be statutory post and this issue cannot be adjudicated in the CP since this Tribunal is having very limited jurisdiction.
16. Moreover, learned counsel for respondents has relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in ROBSW No. 02/2018 in CPSW No. 377/2015 in the matter of Robkar Vs. Vivek Bhardawaj & ors, pronounced on 31.03.2023 wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held as under, "11) Before testing the merits of rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be apt to understand the scope of power of this Court under contempt jurisdiction. In this regard it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jhareshwar Prasad Paul and another vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly and others, (2002) 5 SCC 352. In the said case, the Supreme Court has, while explaining the scope of contempt jurisdiction, observed as under:
"The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. Since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an 13 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020 ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of courts is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be ROBSW No.02/2018 CPSW No.377/2015 confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind, then criticisms which are sometimes leveled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts."
12) In view of what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it is clear that the power of contempt is of a special nature and it needs to be exercised with care and caution. It is also clear that the contempt jurisdiction has to be confined to the question whether there has been a deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and the court should not go into 14 CP 5/2020 & MA 14/2020 the questions which have not been dealt with and ROBSW No.02/2018 CPSW No.377/2015 decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by an applicant. Thus, a Court cannot travel beyond the original judgment while exercising its contempt jurisdiction. It has also to be borne in mind that the Court cannot issue additional or incidental directions if these are not found in the original judgment."
17. In view of the powers assigned to the Central Administrative Tribunal, we cannot travel beyond our jurisdiction. At the most, we can direct the respondents to pursue the pending proposal for revival of the posts before the DoPT at the earliest and subsequent to the approval, act in accordance with the rule as well as the liberty is granted to the applicant to seek redressal of his grievance by filing appropriate application before the appropriate forum.
18. In view of the same, no contempt is made out. CP is closed. Notices issued if any are discharged.
19. Accordingly, nothing survives for adjudication in the MA 14/2020 filed for extension of time and the same is disposed of.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member (A) Member (J)
13.09.2023
SKSI