Dr. Shahadeva Singh vs Shri J.N.L. Srivastava ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1321 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi dated January 28, 2002 whereby Contempt Petition No. 611/2001 in M.A. No. 250/2001 in O.A. No. 580/1999 has bene dismissed and notices issued of the respondents were discharged . The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:-

2. The petitioner was appointed in the National Research Centre for Weed Science as Scientist on 11th December, 1989 in the scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-88-100-4000. It is the claim of the petitioner that on completion of five years service, he was entitled to be promoted to the senior scale of Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000 with effect from 11th December, 1994. The petitioner is stated to have sent representations to the concerned authority without any tangible result.

3. On 20th May, 1995, the petitioner was appointed in the department of Agricultural and Cooperation in the same pay scale as he was drawing in the National Research Centre for Weed Science. On 17th November, 1995, a DPC was held in which the petitioner was considered for promotion but was not recommended for the senior scale with effect from 11th December, 1994.

4. While the petitioner was working in the Department of Agricultural and Cooperation, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted and the pay in the senior scale was revised from 3000-100-3500-125-5000 to Rs. 10,000-325-15,200. A DPC was again held on 9th October, 1996 and the petitioner was found suitable for being placed in the senior scale with effect from 11th december, 1995.

5. Since the petitioner was not placed in the senior scale with effect from 11th December, 1994, fresh representations were made by him to the employer. With a view to consider the representations of the petitioner, a review DPC was constituted. The review DPC found the petitioner to be fit to be placed in the senior grade with effect from 11th December, 1994. Despite the recommendation of the DPC, the respondents did not place the petitioner in the senior scale with effect from 11th December, 1994. However, there is no dispute that the petitioner was placed in the senior scale with effect from 11th December, 1995. Since the respondent did not implement the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, by means of an original application. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the OA of the petitioner by its order dated 3rd May, 2000 and directed the respondents to promote the petitioner with effect from 11th December, 1994 giving higher scale with all consequential benefits. While allowing the OA, the Central Administrative observed as follows;-

"7. Be that as it may, the present OA is based upon the recommendations made by the DPC held on 22-7-1999 for placing the applicant in the higher scale. It is clear from the proceedings that it is a review DPC which found the applicant fit for the next higher scale w.e.f. 11-12-1994. The applicant, therefore, should have been promoted w.e.f 11-12-1994. The only reason given in the minutes of the DPC held on 22-6-1999 was that the matter was subjudice, in the present OA. Hence, the respondents should not have any objection for granting the promotion to the applicant w.e.f. 11-12-1994 as recommended by the DPC.

xx xx xx

9. The respondents are, therefore, directed to promote the applicant w.e.f. 11-12-1994 giving higher scale, with all consequential benefits. The OA is accordingly allowed. No costs."

6. The original employer of the petitioner, the National Research Centre for Weed Science, implemented the aforesaid order of the Tribunal on 18th November, 2000 by passing the following order:-

"In supersession of previous order of even number dated 11/09/2000, in terms of order dated 03/05/2000 in O.A. No. 850/99 of CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi and with the approval of Competent Authority, ICAR, vide letter No. 6-88/99-AU dated 01/09/2000, the Director, N.R.C.W.S., Jabalpur, is pleased to promote Dr. Sahadeva Singh, Ex-scientist to the next higher grade of Scientist (Senior Scale) in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 3,000-100-3,500-125-5,000 (Revised scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200) with effect from 11/2/1994. His pay will be fixed in accordance with the rules.

This issues with the approval of Director."

7. As is evident form the above order, the Director National Research Centre for Weed Science, Jabalpur, accorded permission to the petitioner in consonance with the order of the Tribunal dated May 3, 2000 in the higher scale of Rs. 3,000-100-3,500-125-5,000 corresponding to revised scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200 w.e.f. December 11, 1994.

8. On 4th December, 2001 the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture passed Office Order No. 191/2001 in purported compliance with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The order reads as follows:-

"In pursuance of CAT, New Delhi, order dated 3.5.2001 in the matter of O.A. No. 850/99 filed by Dr. Sehdev Singh former Assistant Director (Weed Science) of the Dte. and in terms of DAC's letter No. 30-1/97-PP. II dated 27.11.2001 and in partial modification of this Directorate's Office Order No. 71 of 1998 issued under file of even number dated 27.4.1998, the pay of Dr. Sehdev Singh is fixed as under:-

(a) At Rs. 3,000/- with effect from 22.5.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 (Pre-Revised).

(b) At Rs. 9100/- with effect from 01.01.1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 (Revised)"

He shall draw his next annual increment on completion of 12 months incremental period with effect from 22.5.1995."

9. As is clear from above order, the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation) fixed the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 3000/- w.e.f. May 22, 1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 (pre-revised) and at Rs. 9100/- w.e.f. January 1, 1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 (revised). It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner had joined the service of respondent only w.e.f. May 1995.

10. According to the petitioner, since the Government of India failed to comply with the order, he moved C.P. No. 611/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal noticed that while the original employer, National Research Centre for Weed Science, had complied with the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd May, 2000, the same benefit had been denied to the petitioner by the present employer, the Ministry of Agriculture.

11. In the circumstances, therefore, the Tribunal by its order dated December 12, 2001, as a matter of indulgence, gave a months time to the respondents herein to rectify the mistake and issue revised orders in full compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 3rd May, 2000. The matter was directed to be listed by the Tribunal on 20th January, 2002. The respondents thereupon filed an affidavit of Sh. J.N.L. Srivastava, Secretary in the Government of India, Department of agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. At the same time the respondents challenged the orders of the Tribunal dated May 3, 2000 and December 12, 2001 before this Court. On January 22, 2002, the challenge of the Government of India was rejected and it was observed as follows:-

"Heard.

We have gone through the orders passed on 3rd May, 2000 and 12.12.2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 850/99 filed by respondent as well as Contempt Petition No. 611/2001 field by respondent subsequently in order to seek compliance of Order dated 3rd May, 2000. In the first order direction was issued to all respondents in the OA to accord promotion to the respondent, w.e.f. 12.12.94 giving higher scale with all consequential benefits. Petitioner has not complied with the said order. the impugned order is rightly passed on 12.12.2001 giving one month's more time to comply with the order and rectify the mistake. Final order has become final and has not been challenged. The grievance of the petitioner is that he petitioner is not concerned with the fact of granting promotion to respondent since it is the concern of the ICAR and not the Union of India. However, in the counter affidavit there was no averment to the effect that Union of India was only proforma party and need not to file reply.

The interim order passed by the Tribunal according promotion is neither bad in law nor there is anything wrong with the said order dated 12.12.2001.

Dismissed.

In case petitioner considered that the prayers made in the Contempt Case are beyond the scope of the relief granted in the main case, then the petitioner will be at liberty to make that submission before the learned Tribunal."

12. reverting back to the proceedings which were pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondents filed a supplementary affidavit of compliance. This affidavit was no different than the earlier affidavit of compliance filed by the respondents. The Tribunal comprising of different members than the members constituting the Bench which passed orders dated May 3, 2000 and December 12, 2001 dismissed the contempt petition of the petitioner herein vide order dated January 28, 2002 relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

"xx xx xx

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considered also the documents on record. We have read and re-read the Tribunal's order dated 3.5.2000 in OA-850/99. Taking into consideration the issues raised in OA-850/99 and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 3.5.2000 read with the subsequent orders issued by the respondents, we are unable to agree with the contentions of the learned proxy counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have in any way contumaciously and willfully disobeyed the Tribunal's order requiring further action to be taken against them for punishment under the provisions of he Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As pointed out by the learned proxy counsel for the petitioner himself that by the subsequent order passed by the respondents dated 4.12.2001, the petitioner's pay at Rs. 3000/- (pre-revised) has bene protected which is in accordance with he pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000/- (pre-revised) to him w.e.f. 11.12.1994. Admittedly, the petitioner had been appointed by the Ministry in the post of Scientist in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- w.e.f. 22.5.1995. In the facts and circumstances of the case, C.P. is dismissed. Notices issued to the case, C.P. is dismissed. Notices issued to the alleged contemners are discharged. Accordingly, MA-236/2002 is also disposed of. No. costs."

The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:-

i) set aside the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi dated 28.1.2002 in C.P. 611/2001 in M.A. No. 250/2001 in O.A. 850/1999 in M.A. No. 236/2002;

ii) direct the respondent to produce the orders passed by them as on 22.1.2002 and 24.1.2002 as mentioned in the compliance affidavit dated 24.1.2002.

iii) direct the respondent to give the petitioner higher scale of Rs. 3000-5000 with effect from 22.5.1995.

iv) pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may dem fit and proper to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case."

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the out set it may noted that after the respondents had passed the order dated December 4, 2001, the same was examined by the Tribunal on December 12, 2001. The Tribunal was view of the view that its order dated May 3, 2000 had not been complied with by the respondents. In this regard the Tribunal observed as follows:-

"3. We have perused the order passed by this Tribunal. In this case, the Tribunal while disposing of the OA examined all the issues regarding promotion of the individual and had come to the conclusion that the measures adopted by the respondents, including Ministry of Agriculture and the ICAR, earlier were not correct and the respondents were therefore directed to accord promotion to the applicants w.e.f. 11.12.1994 and higher scale with all consequential benefits. It is seen that the organisation where he had originally worked had given effect tot he order of the Tribunal vide their Office Order No. 14-28/PF/90/7627 dated 18.11.2000, by granting him the requisite promotion, but this benefit has been denied on his joining the Ministry.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents and the Departmental Representative, Deputy Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer, who are present in Court in person, state that they have complied the directions of this Tribunal after obtaining the advice from the DoPT. We are of the considered view that as the order of the Tribunal had attained finality, its not having been recalled for review or challenged in a CWP and the respondents cannot tamper with the same to the disadvantage of the applicant, as they please.

5. In the interest of justice and as a matter of indulgence, we are according one more month's time to the respondents to rectify the mistake and issue revised orders in full compliance of the Tribunal's order. List on 28.1.2002. If the above direction is not done by the aforesaid date, the alleged contemner should have to be present in person in the Court to explain his conduct in the matter."

Despite the direction of the Tribunal that the respondents shall rectify the mistake and issue revised orders, the Government of India failed to issue revised orders in full compliance of the Tribunal's order. This being so, we fail to appreciate as to how the Tribunal by its order dated January 28, 2002 could come to a conclusion that the respondents have not willfully disobeyed the Tribunal's order dated May 3, 2000 and December 12, 2001. The Tribunal in its order dated January 28, 2002 overlooked the fact that the respondents had challenged the orders of the Tribunal dated May 3, 2000 and December 12, 2001 passed in O.A. No. 850/99 and Contempt Petition No. 611/2001, respectively, before this Court, and the challenge was negatived by holding that the respondents had failed to comply with the orders of the Tribunal. This Court had also found that the impugned order dated December 12, 2001 was neither bad in law nor was there anything wrong with it. It needs to be noted that by the earlier order dated May 3, 2000 the Tribunal had directed the respondents to promote the petitioner w.e.f. December 11, 1994 giving higher scale with all consequential benefits. This order, as already pointed out, was carried out by the erstwhile employer of the petitioner by promoting the petitioner to the next higher grade of scientist (Senior Scale) in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000 revised to Rs. 10000-325-15200 w.e.f. December 11, 1994. The respondents, however, fixed the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 3,000/- w.e.f. May 22, 1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000, and at Rs. 9100 w.e.f. January 1, 1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500. This order did not comply with the order passed by the Tribunal on May 3, 2000 and since the order was not complied with, the Tribunal issued a fresh direction to the respondents on December 12, 2001 to comply with the order. The orders dated May 3, 2000 and December 12, 2001 had acquired finality inasmuch as the same were upheld by this Court in earlier proceedings. In the circumstances, therefore, the Tribunal by the impugned order was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondents had complied with its earlier orders dated May 3, 2000 and December 12, 2001.

14. Accordingly, the order dated January 28, 2002 of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, the proceedings launched by the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, stand revived.

15. Let the parties appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 19th August, 2002 for further proceedings. The contempt proceedings be disposed of preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.