wp6860.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6860/2015
PETITIONERS: 1. Union of India through the Central Manager,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST.
2. The Divisional Railway
Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :
ig Smt. Jankabai wd/o Kundlik Surse,
aged about 70 years, Occ. - Nil,
r/o Manarkheda, Shegaon, Tah. Balapur,
Distt. Akola.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for petitioners
Shri A.B. Bambal, Advocate for respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : 24.02.2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in the Original Application filed by the respondent thereby directing the petitioners to consider the representation dated 31.5.2012 that was submitted by the respondent seeking grant of family pension. A further direction was issued ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:08 ::: wp6860.15.odt 2 to the petitioner no.2 to reconstruct the service record of the deceased husband of the respondent who was an employee of the Railways. The subsequent order dated 11.9.2015 passed in Contempt Petition No.2023/2014 arising out of the same proceedings is also under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. It is the case of the respondent that she is the legal heir of one Pundlik who was a Class - IV employee working with the Central Railways. Said Pundlik expired on 25.10.1982. The respondent thereafter submitted a representation seeking grant of family pension and on the same not being granted, the respondent filed Original Application No.2203/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Original Application was decided on 18.2.2014 and the petitioner no.2 was directed to consider the aforesaid representation and also to take necessary steps for reconstructing the service record of the deceased employee. In terms of aforesaid order the petitioner no.2 decided the representation on 3.7.2014 and did not extend the benefit of family pension to the respondent. The respondent thereafter filed a Contempt Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal and by order dated 11.9.2015 the Tribunal issued fresh directions to the petitioners to take appropriate steps in the matter of fixation of pension within a period of eight weeks. These orders are challenged in the present writ petition.
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:08 :::wp6860.15.odt 3
4. Shri N.P. Lambat, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the initial order was passed in Original Application on 18.2.2014 the representation of the respondent was considered and decided on 3.7.2014. After considering the available record the relief of family pension was not granted. He submitted that the entire service record could not be reconstructed for want of relevant documents. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed in the Original Application having been complied with there was no occasion for filing the Contempt Petition. It was then submitted that in the Contempt Petition the Tribunal could not have issued any fresh directions as it was only concerned with the aspect as to whether the initial order had been complied or not. It was not open for the Tribunal to have issued any further directions especially when the communication dated 3.7.2014 was not under challenge.
5. Shri A.B. Bambal, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned orders. It was submitted that as the initial order was not complied in its letter and spirit, the respondent had filed the Contempt Petition. He submitted that the directions issued therein were only to ensure compliance of the earlier order. However, without prejudice to the aforesaid submission it was urged that as the communication dated 3.7.2014 disallowed the benefit of family pension liberty be granted to the respondent to challenge the said communication.
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:08 :::wp6860.15.odt 4
6. Having heard respective Counsel and having perused the documents on record it can be seen that by the initial order dated 18.2.2014 the Tribunal had given two directions. The first direction was to consider the representation dated 31.5.2012 made by the respondent and the second direction was to take necessary steps for reconstructing the service record. By communication dated 3.7.2014 the prayer for grant of family pension was disallowed. The petitioners also gave reasons as to why they are not able to reconstruct the service record. It is, therefore, clear that the directions as issued came to be duly complied by the petitioners. However, in the Contempt Petition filed by the respondent the Tribunal proceeded to issue further directions which were beyond the scope of the order passed in the Original Application. It is well settled that in exercise of contempt jurisdiction what has to be seen is the compliance of the order of which disobedience is complained of and further directions beyond the scope of the order alleged to have been disobeyed cannot be issued. Hence, the said exercise undertaken by the Central Administrative Tribunal while passing the order dated 11.9.2015 is liable to be set aside.
7. Insofar as the communication dated 3.7.2014 is concerned, the benefit of family pension has been denied to the respondent and the petitioners have expressed inability to reconstruct the record by assigning reasons. If the respondent is aggrieved by the aforesaid communication, it ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:08 ::: wp6860.15.odt 5 is open for the respondent to challenge the same in accordance with law.
It is clear from the record that this communication was never challenged by the respondent in any proceedings.
8. Insofar as the challenge to the order passed in the Original Application dated 18.2.2014 is concerned, the same merely directs the petitioners to decide the representation dated 31.5.2012 and to take necessary steps for reconstruction of the service record of deceased Pundlik. The respondent was also called upon to furnish relevant documents in support of her claim. There is no direction to take any decision in any particular manner. Said order therefore does not require to be interfered.
9. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed.
(i) The order dated 11.9.2015 passed in Contempt
Petition No.2023/2014 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) It is open for the respondent to challenge the
communication dated 3.7.2014 issued by the petitioner no.2 in accordance with law. The respective contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open.
Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:30:08 :::