130910001972024_a629920fee4602559bc039a00357087e.pdf

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
This the 15th day of January, 2024
Contempt Petition No. 07 of 2024

In
Original Application No. 7 of 2023
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER(A)
1. Ganga Ram, aged about 62 years, S/o Late Raja Ram,

Retired on 30.6.2022 as Senior Account Assistant from the
office of Dy. FA&CAO/TA, Northern Railway, Estate Entry
Road, New Delhi, R/o V-139, Ground Floor 01, Medical Road,
Near Jevan Lok Hospital, Sector 12, Pratap Vihar, Vijai Nagar,
Ghaziabad.
2. Shashi Maggoo, W/o Sri Jagdish Maggoo, Retired on

30.6.2021 as Accounts Assistant from the office of Dy.
FA&CAO/TA, Northern Railway, Estate Entry Road, New
Delhi, R/o C-203, Venus Apartment, Opposite Sainik Vihar
Gate no.4, Rani Bagh, Delhi.
3. Jasbir Singh, S/o Ram Singh, Retired on 30.6.2015 as Sr.

AFA/Inventroy Control (Accounts) from the office of
FA&CAO,, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, R/o
Flat No. 2A Block III, Rail Vihar, Sector 54 Gurugram.
4. Shobha Uppal, W/o Sri Dinesh Kumar Uppal, Retired on

30.6.2014 as Senior Section Officer/Accounts from the office
of Dy. CAO/TA Office, Northern Railway, Estate Entry Road,
New Delhi, R/o A-39 Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi
110 034.
5. Anju Kaura, D/o Jagdish Lal Kapoor, Retired on

30.6.2013 as Accounts Assistant from the office of Dy.
FA&CAO/TA Office, Northern Railway, Estate Entry Road,
New Delhi, R/o C-54 Chander Nagar A Block Janakpuri, New
Delhi.
……… Applicants
By Advocate: Sri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Sri Shobhan Chaudhary, General Manager, Northern
Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
Page 1 of 4
2. Smt. Preeti Jha, Principal Financial Advisor and Chief
Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New
Delhi.
………… Respondents
By Advocate:
O R D E R (Oral)
Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J

The present Contempt petition has been filed by the
petitioners for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and
order of this Tribunal dated 05th January, 2023 (wrongly
mentioned in the order as 5th January, 2022 instead of 05th
January, 2023) passed in Original Application No. 7 of 2023.
2. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners is that the O.A. No. 07 of 2023 was decided by this
Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 05th January, 2023
(wrongly mentioned as 05th January, 2022) with specific
direction to the respondents to consider and decide the
representation moved by the petitioners within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of such representation. It is also
argued that although some order has been passed on the
representation of the petitioners, but actual relief as sought by
the petitioners, has not been granted. The notional increment
permissible to the petitioners has not been granted on the
pretext for want of guidelines said to be issued by the DoP&T.
Thus, argued that there is clear disobedience of the directions of
the Tribunal.
3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel

for the petitioner and have also gone through the pleadings
available on record.
4. The operative part of the judgment rendered in O.A. No.

7 of 2023 runs as thus:-
Page 2 of 4
“……….Accordingly, in view of the limited prayer of the
applicants to move fresh representations, they are allowed to do so
within 15 days from the date of this order. The competent authority
amongst the respondents is directed to decide the same by way of a
reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from
the date they receive the fresh representation of the applicants. The
order passed on the same shall be communicated to the applicant
forthwith.”
5. The representations moved by the petitioners before the

authorities concerned have been considered and decided. It is
immaterial as to whether the relief has been granted in favour of
the petitioners or not. The contempt proceedings could only be
started/initiated where there is breach or disobedience of the
directions of the Tribunal. In the case, in hand, there is no such
breach/disobedience of the directions of the Tribunal. There
was only a direction to consider and decide the representation
of the petitioners and the same has been decided. It may be
mentioned here that if the petitioners intend to challenge the
order as passed by the respondents on their representation, they
are free to do so by filing fresh O.A. before this Tribunal, if
they desire. As such, on the strength of pleadings disclosed in
the Contempt petition, the contempt proceedings cannot be
started/initiated against the respondents. No ingredients to
initiate the contempt proceedings are available in the present
matter.
6. In the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar

reported in 1996 Legal Eagle (SC) 1385 and also in the case
of Prithavi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in
AIR 2004 SC 4277 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
the Court dealing with application for contempt of court cannot
traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or
otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any
direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction with an
application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same
would be impermissible and indefensible.
Page 3 of 4
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhote Ram Vs.
Urvarshi Gulati & Another reported in AIR 2001 SC 3468
has observed as under:-
“Court directed for considering the case of the
applicant for promotion. The case of the petitioner was
duly considered, but his claim for promotion was rejected
and in that even since the case of the applicant was
considered as such, the contempt proceedings cannot be
proceeded as there is no violation of any direction issued
by the Court.”
8. In view of the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court,

referred to above, we find that the respondents/contemnors have
not acted in a manner which can be deemed to be a willful
disobedience of the order of this Tribunal dated 05th January,
2023 passed in Original Application No. 7 of 2023. There is
substantial compliance of the direction of the Tribunal.
9. In view of the above, the CCP fails and accordingly the

contempt proceedings are closed.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)

Member-A Member-J
Girish/-
Page 4 of 4

130910001972024_a629920fee4602559bc039a00357087e.pdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

130910001972024_a629920fee4602559bc039a00357087e.pdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

130910001972024_a629920fee4602559bc039a00357087e.pdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

This the 15th day of January, 2024

Contempt Petition No. 07 of 2024

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII, MEMBER (J)

1. Ganga Ram, aged about 62 years, S/o Late Raja Ram,

2. Shashi Maggoo, W/o Sri Jagdish Maggoo, Retired on

3. Jasbir Singh, S/o Ram Singh, Retired on 30.6.2015 as Sr.

4. Shobha Uppal, W/o Sri Dinesh Kumar Uppal, Retired on

5. Anju Kaura, D/o Jagdish Lal Kapoor, Retired on

Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J

2. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel

4. The operative part of the judgment rendered in O.A. No.

5. The representations moved by the petitioners before the

6. In the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar

8. In view of the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court,

9. In view of the above, the CCP fails and accordingly the

(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)

You might also like