Bombay High Court
Union Of India, Mumbai, Through ... vs Smt. Jankabai Wd/O. Kundlik Surse on 24 February, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
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
wp6860.15.odt
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.
wp6860.15.odt
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.
wp6860.15.odt
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
wp6860.15.odt
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
