Delhi High Court
Bhaiyaji Gupta vs Devendra Chaudhary, Secretary, ... on 24 November, 2015
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 661/2015 & CM APPL. 26634/2015
BHAIYAJI GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate with
Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Nina Bhasin,
Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Mr. Abhay
Jena and Ms. Radhika Gupta,
Advocates
versus
DEVENDRA CHAUDHARY, SECRETARY,
DEPTT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS
WELFARE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Mishra with Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Saxena and Mr. Ramneek
Mishra, Advocates
% Date of Decision : 24th November, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience
of the order dated 28th April, 2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court
in LPA No. 100/2015.
2. Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite
the aforesaid categorical order of the Division Bench, respondents are
refusing to re-fix the pay of the petitioner as has been fixed by his
Department, ITAT, in terms of Sixth Central Pay Commission vide
communication dated 16th October, 2008 at Rs.37,750/-.
3. Mr. Bhasin further states that the respondents have deliberately
concealed the letter dated 27th August, 2015 written by respondent no. 4
seeking permission to either implement the order dated 28th April, 2015 or
file an appeal. He states that as the permission to file an appeal was turned
down by the competent authority, respondents should have implemented the
order of the Division Bench. He contends that the respondents have
concealed the directive of Ministry of Law and Justice dated 3rd September,
2015 to implement the Division Bench's aforesaid order dated 28th April,
2015.
4. Mr. Bhasin also contends that the petitioner had claimed and had been
granted parity with Mr. Prakash Narain, Mr. O. Anand Ram and Mr. B.N.
Kothari whose pensions have been revised after the Sixth Central Pay
Commission to Rs.37,750/-.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Ruchir Mishra, learned counsel for
respondents states that as the petitioner retired as ITAT member on 22nd
January, 1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 7,300-7,600, he is governed by OM
dated 1st September, 2008. Mr. Mishra points out that the pay scale of Rs.
7300-7,600 is the pay scale of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and the
corresponding pay scale in the Fifth Central Pay Commission is Rs. 22,400-
24,500 and the corresponding pay scale in the Sixth Central Pay
Commission is Rs. 67,000-79,000.
6. According to Mr. Mishra, by virtue of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1st
September, 2008 the petitioner's pension comes to Rs.33,500/- - which he is
being paid. Consequently, he states that the order of the Division Bench
dated 28th April, 2015 stands complied with.
7. Mr. Mishra states that the pension of Mr. Prakash Naryan, Mr. O.
Anandram and Mr. B.M. Kothari are under revision as they had been
calculated wrongly and in violation of the Government's Resolution dated
29th August, 2008 as implemented by OM dated 01st September, 2008.
8. Mr. Mishra states that by way of OMs dated 28 th January, 2013 and
30th July, 2015, Government of India had also fixed the revised pension of
pre-2006 retirees as per Government's Resolution and OM dated 01st
September, 2008. He clarifies that vide OM dated 30 th July, 2015, the
earlier OM dated 28th January, 2013 has been made effective from 01st
January, 2006 instead of 24th September, 2012.
9. In rejoinder, Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for petitioner states that
respondents have never taken the stand that petitioner's pension has been
revised and refixed. He disputes the fact that the corresponding pay of the
petitioner in the Sixth Central Pay Commission is Rs.67,000-79,000/-. He
states that petitioner's revised pay scale under the Sixth Central Pay
Commission is in the pay band of Rs.75,500-80,000/- in terms of OM dated
01st September, 2008 as determined by ITAT vide its letter dated 16th
October, 2008.
10. Since the case has a chequered history, it is essential to outline the
basic facts. The petitioner challenged before the Central Administrative
Tribunal (for short "CAT") order of Central Pay Accounts Office,
Government of India, as contained in its letter dated 13th December, 2012
reducing the petitioner's pension fixed as on 1st January, 2006 from Rs.
37,750/- to Rs. 33,500/-. By the same order, recovery of alleged excess
pension amounting to Rs. 6,53,700/- was also directed. The petitioner in his
petition claimed pension parity with Mr. Prakash Narain and Mr. O.
Anandram.
11. The CAT vide order dated 18th July, 2014 disposed of petitioner's OA
2374/2014 by following its own order in the case of Prakash Narain Vs.
Union of India, OA No. 1715/2013. The order passed by CAT in
petitioner's OA No. 2374/2014 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Shri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for applicant submits that
controversy to be determined in the present OA is in all fours of the
order dated 23.05.2013 passed in OA No. 1715/2013 - Prakash
Narin Vs. Union of India and he would be satisfied if the
respondents are directed to examine his claim for fixation of pension
in view of the order of Full Bench of this Tribunal, as upheld by the
Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 1535/2012. The para 3 of the order
passed in OA No. 1715/2013 reads as under:-
"3. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents. Shri
Inderjit Singh, learned proxy counsel for Shri Rajinder
Nischal, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf
of respondents. He fairly concedes that the claim of
the applicant deserves to be considered in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal (supra) as
upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)
No. 1535/2012 with connected petitions decided on
29.4.2013, thus the respondents would reconsider the
claim of the applicant in view of the said judgment and
till the outcome of such reexamination, they will not
reduce the pension of the applicant."
2. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Rajinder Nischal,
learned senior standing counsel for UOI, accepts notice on behalf of
the respondents.
3. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the
applicant, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents
to examine the claim of the applicant for refixation of pension in
terms of the order of Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 1535/2012
and to take a final view in the mater. Till such re-examination, the
respondents would not reduce the pension of the applicant."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Consequently, CAT in the petitioner's case directed the respondents to
examine the petitioner's claim for re-fixation of pension in terms of this
Court's Division Bench order in W.P.(C) 1535/2012 and to take a final view
in the matter. Till such re-examination, respondents were directed not to
reduce the petitioner's pension.
13. It is pertinent to mention that in W.P.(C) 1535/2012, this Court upheld
the decision of CAT dated 1st November, 2011 concurring with the
reasoning given by Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.K. Agarwal and
Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, W.P.(C) 1964/2009.
14. By the aforesaid judgment, O.Ms. dated 3rd October, 2008 and 14th
October, 2008 were found not to be in consonance with the Government
Resolution dated 29th August, 2008 whereby recommendation of Sixth
Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. The
operative portion of the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court's
Division Bench in R.K. Agarwal and Others (supra) which was accepted by
a Division Bench of this Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"26. ......Simple solution is to give effective to the resolution dated
29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay
Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find
force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in
consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution
ensures that "the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision
that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the
sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay
thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the
pensioner had retired", this would clearly mean that the pay of the
retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought
corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay
Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such
that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band
and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed
and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of
the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay
the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are
not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest
@9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to
cost."
(emphasis supplied)
15. Consequently, in accordance with the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in W.P.(C) 1535/2012, pay of the petitioner who had retired
before 1st January, 2006 was to be refixed in the revised pay scale as per
Sixth Central Pay Commission and then alone his pension was to be
calculated and that too in such a manner that it was not lower than 50% of
the minimum pay in the band and the grade pay thereon.
16. On 5th / 12th September, 2013, Government of India, Pay and
Accounts Office, Department of Legal Affairs revised the pension of
similarly placed Mr. Prakash Narain to Rs. 37,750/-.
17. However, once again the Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Pension
Accounting Office, Government of India as well as Pay and Accounts
Officer (LA) vide order dated 20th November, 2014 refused to refix
petitioner's salary in the revised pay scale of Rs. 75,500-80,000 for pension
purpose. It also directed respondent no. 6 to recover the excess amount from
the petitioner's account in accordance with OM dated 14th October, 2008
which was found by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court
as well as by this Court not to be in consonance with Resolution dated 29th
August, 2008. The order dated 20th November, 2014 is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"NO. F-259/PAO-LA/2014 20/11/2014
To,
Sh. Bhaiyaji Gupta
I R S (Retd.) Advocate,
House No. 144, Sector 15A,
Noida 201 301.
Sub: Arbitrary reduction in the pension of Sh. Bhaiyaji Gupta,
retired Member of ITAT.
Ref: Letter No. CPAO/A1/2014/KM/Vol-75/P-91Dated 16/10/2014
Sir,
Please refer to your letter dated 05/09/2014 to CPAO on the above
cited subject. In this respect, it is stated that you were retired in the
Pay Rs. 7300-7600 on 22/01/1987. Accordingly, your pension was
revised in the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 22400-525-24500 as per
recommendation of 5th CPC. The pay scale of Rs. 7300-7600 was
upgraded to Rs. 7300-8000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 (i.e. after the date of
your retirement). Now, you are insisting that the corresponding pay
scale of Rs. 7300-8000 may be considered for revising your pension in
the pay scale of Rs. 75,500-80,000, which is not permissible under the
OM No. 38/37/08/P&PW(A) dated 14th October, 2008 of Deptt. of
Pension & Pensioners Welfare. The corresponding pay scale of Rs.
7300-8000 (the pay scale from you were retired) is Rs. 22400-525-
24500 under 5th CPC and Rs. 67000-79000 as per the
recommendations of 6th CPC. The pension has accordingly been
revised at Rs. 33,500/- (i.e. 50% of pay scale of Rs. 67000-79000).
The Pay & Accounts Office is only a subordinate authority who is
authorized to revise the pension as per the instructions issued by the
Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners Welfare from time to time. No further
instructions have been issued by P&PW as well as by the
Administrative Ministry i.e. M/o Law in this regard."
(emphasis supplied)
18. Since according to the petitioner, the said reduction and re-fixation
was arbitrary and in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in W.P.(C) 1535/2012, petitioner filed a fresh writ petition
being W.P.(C) 9351/2014. The prayer in the aforesaid writ petition is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"a) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to
implement the order dated 29.04.2013 of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.
No. 1535 of 2012 whereby the judgment dated 01.1.2011 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 65
of 2010 was upheld;
b) issue an appropriate order/ direction in the nature of writ of
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to set-aside and quash the
communication / order bearing No. F-295/PAO-LA/2014/2177-81
dated 20.11.2014 passed by Respondent No. 4 being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgment
dated 01.1.2011 passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 65/2010 and upheld by this
Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 1535 OF 2012;
c) issue an appropriate order/ direction in the nature of writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the Respondents to
examine and revise the pension of the Petitioner in terms of the
order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 1535 of 2012, which had
been followed by Principal Bench of Central Administrative
Tribunal in the Petitioners own case in OA No. 2374/2014, dated
18.07.2014;
d) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents
to forthwith refund a sum of Rs. 6,53,700/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty
Three Thousand and Seven Hundred Only); and other amounts
deducted from month to month;
e) Pas such other Order(s) which is and/or necessary and
expedient and in the interest of justice in the prevailing facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner and against the
Respondents, along with cost to be ordered again the Respondents."
(emphasis supplied)
19. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15th January, 2015
passed in W.P.(C) 9351/2014 dismissed petitioner's writ petition for the time
being on the ground that judgment passed by the CAT was pending
challenge before the Supreme Court.
20. In an appeal being LPA No. 100/2015 filed by the petitioner, it was
clarified by the petitioner that vide order dated 28th April, 2015 SLP (C) No.
2305/2013 filed by the respondents challenging the Division Bench's
judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 1535/2012 had been dismissed on 29th
July, 2013. It was also pointed out that a review petition and a curative
petition had been subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was
further stated that even the SLP (C) 36148-50/2013 filed by the respondent
was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17th March, 2015.
21. Consequently, before the Division Bench the learned counsel for
respondents conceded that the petitioner would be entitled to the relief
prayed for in the writ petition which in turn would be the relief which had
been granted by the CAT in the Original Application filed by the petitioner.
The Division Bench also directed the respondents to revise the petitioner's
pension and pay him arrears within twelve weeks. The operative portion of
the Division Bench's order in LPA No. 100/2015 is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"8. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that in that view of
the matter the petitioner would be entitled to the relief prayed for in
the writ petition, which in turn would be the relief which has been
granted to the writ petitioner by the Central Administrative Tribunal
in the Original Application filed by the petitioner. We dispose of the
appeal noting as above.
9. Since the matter relates to pension we would expect the Union of
India to revise the pension of the petitioner and pay the arrears
within 12 weeks from today."
(emphasis supplied)
22. As petitioner's pension was not revised and released within twelve
weeks, petitioner filed the present contempt petition alleging wilful
disobedience of the Division Bench order dated 28th April, 2015.
23. Respondents' argument that petitioner's revised pay band under Sixth
Central Pay Commission is Rs. 67,000-79,000 is not correct as firstly, the
ITAT which is the appropriate authority to determine the pension, had itself
determined the petitioner's pay to be equivalent to Rs. 75,500-80,000 under
Sixth Central Pay Commission. The letter dated 16th October, 2008 written
by ITAT enclosing the petitioner's calculation of pension is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
A) Letter dated 16th October, 2008 :-
"No. F 128-Cash/(Atd)/08
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
11th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110 003
Dated:- 16th October, 2008
To,
The Pay & Accounts Officer,
Office of the Pay & Accounts Office,
4th Floor, Janpath,
New Delhi
Sub: Implementation of Government's decision on the
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
- Revision of Pension of Pre-2006. Pensioners/Family
Pensioners etc - regarding.
Sir,
In terms of O.M. No. F 38/37/08-P & PW (A) dated 1st
September, 2008 the revised calculation of Pension/ Family Pension
of Shri Bhaiyaji Gupta, Hon'ble Accountant Member (Retd.) in the
prescribed format alongwith the Service Book is sent herewith for
taking necessary action.
Yours faithfully,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR"
(emphasis supplied)
B) Calculation
"INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : DELHI BENCHES : NEW DELHI
Fixation of Pension consequent to implementation of
Recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission
In Terms of O.M.F. No. 38/37/08-P & W (A) dated 1st September, 2008
(i) Name : SHRI BHAIYAJI GUPTA
(ii) PPO No. : 227
(iii) Date of Birth : 23.01.1927
(iii)
(a) Age as on 01.01.2006 : 78 Years 11 Month and 08
days.
(iv) Date of Retirement : 23.01.1987
(v) Post held on Retirement : Accountant Member,
Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal
(vi) Pay Scale of Post : Rs. 73,300-100-7600/-
(vii) Revised Pay as per Pay Rule : Rs. 7,600/-
(viii) Equivalent Pay fixed consequent to : Rs. 22,400/-
recommendation of Fifth Pay
Commission
(ix) Revised Pension fixed consequent to : Rs. 11,200/-
Fifth Pay Commission
(x) Revised Family Pension : Rs. 6,720/-
(xi) Equivalent Pay Scale Sixth Pay : Rs. 75,500/- to
Commission Rs. 80,000/-
(xii) Pension Admissible on 01.01.2006 : Rs. 37,750/-
(Fixed in terms of para 11 & 12 of
OM (dated 01.09.2008)
(xiii) Additional Pension admissible in : Rs. 7,550/-
terms of Para 4.5 of CM (DOB being
@ 20% of revised basic Pension)
(xiv) Family Pension to be fixed at 30% of : Rs. 11,325/-"
(emphasis supplied)
24. Secondly, the respondents themselves in pursuance to an identical
direction by CAT had determined similarly situated Mr. Prakash Narain's
pension on 5th / 12th, September, 2013 to be Rs. 37,750/-.
25. Thirdly, this Court finds that the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for respondents in the present petition are identical to the reasons
given by respondents in the order dated 20th November, 2014 whereby
petitioner's pension was refixed at Rs. 33,500/-. When the said order was
challenged by the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents had made a
statement before the Division Bench on 28th April, 2015 that petitioner
would be entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition which included
quashing / setting aside of the order dated 20th November, 2014.
Consequently, the same reasoning as contained in the order dated 20 th
November, 2014 cannot be advanced in the present proceedings.
26. Fourthly, respondents have till date never refixed the petitioner's
equivalent pay under the Sixth Central Pay Commission for pension
purposes, other than what was determined by ITAT.
27. Fifthly, the Ministry of Law and Justice vide its letter dated 3 rd
September, 2015 has specifically stated that the Ministry has decided to
accept the opinion of ASG and implement the order dated 28th April, 2015.
The relevant portion of the letter dated 3rd September, 2015 is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"2. Based on the above opinion of the Ld. ASG, the matter has
been examined in the Department and it has been decided to
accept the said opinion and implement the above order of the
Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, the P&AO, Department of Legal
Affairs is advised to implement the above order of Hon'ble Delhi
High Court dated 28.4.2015."
(emphasis supplied)
28. Even Mr. D.K. Gupta, the deponent of one of the replies, had
requested for approval of upgraded scale to the petitioner at the earliest to
avoid consequences in the present contempt petition. The relevant portion
of letter dated 24th/27th August, 2015 of Mr. D.K. Gupta is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"2. Shri Bhaiyaji Gupta has now filed contempt petition
No.661/2015 in Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above said LPA
alleging wilful violation of the judgement and order dated
28.05.2015 of Hon'ble High Court in the said LPA, which was
already forwarded to your office vide this office letter of even
No.1416-17 dated 24.07.2015 (Annexure-3). In this case the
Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi order dated 18.07.2015 in
the OA 2374/2014 has upheld in the above LPA.
3. In this connection it is also submitted that in the following
similar cases upgraded scale of 75500-80000 had already been
granted as per direction of Hon'ble CAT:
I. Shri B M Kothari, OA No.375/2013 in CAT, Jodhpur. The
benefit of upgraded scale of Rs.75500-80000 had been
granted as per Judgement dated of Hon'ble CAT, Jodhpur
with the approval of JS & LA, M/o Law & Justice.
(Annexure-4).
II. Shri Prakash Narayan, OA No.1715/213 in Principal
Bench, CAT, Delhi. The benefit of upgraded scale of
Rs.75500-80000 had been granted as per Judgment dated of
Hon'ble CAT, Delhi vide PAO Letter dated 05.09.2013
(Annexure-5).
III. Shri O. Anandram, OA No.759/2011 in CAT,
Madras. The benefit of upgraded scale of Rs.75500-80000
had been granted as per Judgement dated 26.03.2012 of
Hon'ble CAT, Madras vide PAO Letter dated 05.09.2013
(Annexure-6).
IV. Shri N. Krishna Murthy, CP No.61/2015 in OA
No.356/2014 in CAT, Hyderabad. Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad
vide judgement dated 19-06-2014 has directed to restore the
pension of the applicant to Rs.37750/- and refund the
amounts of pension already recovered from his pension
amount to the applicant immediately. Shri Krishna Murthy
has filed the CP No.61/2015 in OA No.356/2014 (Annexure-
7). The next date of hearing in the above CP is 11.09.2015.
4. In view of the above, it is requested to consider above
material and grant the approval for the upgraded scale to Shri
Bhaiyaji Gupta at the earliest to avoid the consequences in
contempt petition No.661/2015 filed in Hon'ble Delhi High
Court. The next date of hearing in the said CP is 16.09.2015.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court order dated 20.08.2015 in this
case is enclosed.
(emphasis supplied)
29. The defence that the pensions of Mr. Prakash Narain and Mr. O.
Anand Ram are being revised to Rs.33,500/-, is untenable as this defence
was never raised by the respondent in either W.P.(C) 9351/2014 or in LPA
100/2015. Mr. Prakash Narain's pension was recalculated at Rs.37,750/-
only on 05th / 12th December, 2013. Even in the aforesaid letter dated 24th /
27th August, 2015, Mr. D.K. Gupta has not mentioned of any move to re-
determine the pensions of Mr. Prakash Narain and Mr. O. Anand Ram. No
notice issued to Mr. Prakash Narain and Mr. O. Anand Ram has been placed
on record. Consequently, this Court is of the view that respondents cannot
now go behind the aforesaid orders of the Division Bench, which have
attained finality and that too on the basis of material which was not even a
part of the record in the earlier round of litigation and not looked into by the
said courts.
30. It is also not understood as to how respondents are asking petitioner to
refund monies, when the specific direction of the Division Bench in the
judgment and order dated 28th April, 2015 is to pay.
31. It is settled law that rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be
gone into in contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court in Union of India
& Ors. vs. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613 has held as under:-
"If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its
opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither
practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court
that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court.
Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt
proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting
an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt.
While dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot
traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In
other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what
should have been done. It 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 while dealing with an application for initiation of
contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and
indefensible."
(emphasis supplied)
32. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondents have
failed to comply with final and binding order dated 28th April, 2015 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court.
33. Since there is a complete somersault in the two reply affidavits filed
in the present proceedings, this Court is of the view that the
disobedience/violation of the Division Bench order is wilful. However,
before this Court formally holds the deponents of two affidavits, namely,
Ms. Vandana Sharma, Joint Secretary and Mr. D.K. Gupta, Pay and
Accounts Officer (LA), guilty of contempt, they are given one last one last
opportunity to comply with the final and binding order dated 28 th April,
2015 within a period of two weeks. Both Ms. Vandana Sharma, Joint
Secretary and Mr. D.K. Gupta, Pay and Accounts Officer (LA) are directed
to be personally present in Court on 21st December, 2015.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2015
rn/js
