Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ramesh Giri vs Sri Vineet Pandey, Secretary, ... on 22 February, 2024
1
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Dated : This the 22nd day of February, 2024
Contempt Petition No. 0031 of 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Ramesh Giri, aged about 72 years S/o Late Sri Ram Giri,
Retired from the post of Chaukidar, Temporary Government
Group "D" employee, R/o Village/Post-Sudhar/Salabad
Jalaun, District-Jalaun.
. . .Petitioner.
By Adv : Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta.
VERSUS
1. Sri Vineet Pandey, Secretary Ministry of
Communication and I.T., Department of Post, Dak
Bhawan Sansad Marg New Delhi.
2. Sri B. Selvakumar, Chief Post Master General, U.P.
Parimandal Lucknow
3. Sri Sahnawaz, Director Accounts (Postal) U.P. Circle,
Sector -D, Aliganj Lucknow-224024.
4. Sri B.K. Pandey, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Jhansi Division Jhansi 284001.
......Contemnors/Respondents/Opposite parties.
By Adv: (None Present)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J) Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. 2
2. Heard on admission.
3. This contempt petition has been moved for non- compliance of the order dated 22nd August, 2023 passed by Single Member of this Tribunal in OA No.958/2018. It appears from the record that the OA No.958/2018 was decided on 22nd August, 2023 and in Para No. 16 it was directed:-
"16. Thus, relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned orders dated 19.1.2018 and 17.5.2018 are quashed. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the applicant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date it becomes due till the date of actual payment as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of."
4. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by filing the Writ Appeal No.10505/2023. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the aforesaid Writ Petition on 01.12.2023 and in Para No.38 it was directed:-
"38. Let all pensionary dues be computed and paid out to the respondent within next three months, in any case not later than 31.03.2024, failing which the same may attract interest @ 6% per annum."
5. Therefore, it appears from both orders that the Hon'ble High Court granted the time upto 31.03.2024 and also 3 directed that in case of failure the interest @ 6% per annum will also be payable.
6. Hence, before 31.03.2024, any contempt cannot be filed, but the petitioner filed the contempt petition on 11.02.2024. In addition to that it is also required to be mentioned here that in this case, the contempt is not tenable before this Tribunal. In the case of R.N. Dey Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik, 2000 (4) SCC 400, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said in Para Nos. 7 & 8 as under:-
"7. We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of the Court's dignity and majesty of law..............
8. Further, the decree-holder, who does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the Court for non-satisfaction of the money decree. In land acquisition cases when a decree is passed the State is in the position of a judgment-debtor and hence the Court should not normally lend help to a party who refuses to take legally, provided steps for executing the decree. At any rate, the Court should be slow to haul up officers of the Government for contempt for non-satisfaction of such money decree."
7. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court clearly says that when the execution is permissible then the action under Contempt of Court should not be taken. The aforesaid Judgment has been followed in Horilal Vs. Bhajanlal-AIR 2010 M.P. 144 (06.11.2009) wherein it has been said that when the Code of Civil Procedure provides for instituting a 4 proceeding for execution of the Judgment and decree, then a contempt application under Article 215 read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable as the Statute provides for a mechanism for Execution of the decree passed.
8. In view of the above, if the department will not comply with the order upto 31.03.2024, then the petitioner may file the execution application for execution of the aforesaid order. The contempt is not maintainable hence, dismissed.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) (Justice B.K. Shrivastava)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Shakuntala/