Bombay High Court
Shri Patiram Bapurao Shyamkuwar vs Union Of India, Thr. Secretary, ... on 16 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp920.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.920/2013
PETITIONER: Shri Patiram Bapurao Shyamkuwar,
Aged about 67 years, Occ. : Retired Govt.
Servant, r/o Plot No.200, Road No.5,
Kasturba Nagar, Jaripatka, Nagpur - 440014.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Union of India, through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Branch
Army Headquarters, Integrated HQS of MOD
Armi, Kashmir House, New Delhi - 110011.
3. Chief Engineer,
Headquarters, Chief Engineer (AF), Vayusena
Nagar, Nagpur - 440001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B. Lahiri, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 16.03.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 5.12.2012 dismissing the contempt
petition filed by the petitioner.
wp920.13.odt
The petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer with
the respondents and according to the petitioner, he was entitled to the
benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (A.C.P.S.) w.e.f.
9.8.1999. Since the said relief was not granted, the petitioner filed
Original Application No.2015/2006 for a direction against the
respondents to grant the said benefit to the petitioner. Since the petitioner
was superannuated before he filed the original application, the Tribunal
by partly allowing the original application directed the respondents to
constitute a Review Screening Committee for considering the case of the
petitioner for grant of second A.C.P.S. w.e.f. 9.8.1999 on being found fit.
Even before the original application was decided a Screening Committee
was constituted and the petitioner was found fit for financial upgradation
from 9.8.2002. The petitioner was granted the benefit of A.C.P.S. from
9.8.2002 but this fact was not pointed out to the Tribunal before the
original application was decided. The petitioner filed a contempt petition
before the Tribunal seeking action against the respondents for
non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal in Original Application
No.2015/2006. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the contempt petition
after observing that there was no contempt of the order in Original
Application No.2015/2016. The said order of the Tribunal is challenged
by the petitioner in the instant petition.
wp920.13.odt
Shri Lahiri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the contempt petition as
by the order in Original Application No.2015/2006, the respondents were
directed to constitute a Review Screening Committee for considering the
claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of A.C.P.S. from 9.8.1999 and
the respondents did not constitute such a Committee after the order was
passed in the original application. It is submitted that by relying on the
minutes of the Departmental Screening Committee that was constituted
before the original application was decided, the petitioner was wrongly
granted the benefit of A.C.P.S. from 9.8.2002. It is submitted that the
respondents have committed a contempt of the Court by disobeying the
order in Original Application No.2015/2006.
On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the
respondents that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the contempt petition
by observing that there was no contempt of the order of the Tribunal. It is
stated that inadvertently it could not be pointed out to the Tribunal before
Original Application No.2015/2006 was decided that the petitioner's case
was considered by the Departmental Screening Committee and the
petitioner was found fit for grant of benefits of A.C.P.S. from 9.8.2002.
The learned Counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
wp920.13.odt
We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the
Tribunal dismissing the contempt petition filed by the petitioner. Though
a Departmental Screening Committee was not constituted after Original
Application No.2015/2006 was decided, the respondents had granted the
benefit of A.C.P.S. to the petitioner from 9.8.2002, as the petitioner was
found to be fit from that time. Since the case of the petitioner was
considered by the Departmental Screening Committee before the original
application was decided and since the said fact was mistakenly not
pointed out to the Tribunal, the Tribunal rightly held by perusing the
minutes of the Departmental Screening Committee that there was no
contempt of the order of the Tribunal in Original Application 2015/2006.
The Tribunal held in the impugned order that the petitioner was granted
financial upgradation from 9.8.2002 and there was no contempt by the
respondents of the order of the Tribunal. We do not find any fault with
the order of the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same, in exercise of
the writ jurisdiction. We find from a perusal of the record that the
petitioner's confidential reports were good only for the years 1999-2000,
2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and hence, on the basis of the said confidential
reports, the petitioner was granted upgradation from 9.8.2002. If the
petitioner was aggrieved by the grant of upgradation w.e.f. 9.8.2002, the
wp920.13.odt
petitioner had other remedy, but it was surely not a matter of contempt.
Since the order of the Tribunal is just and proper, we
dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
