Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Sharma & Ors vs Bimal Julka & Anr. on 21 February, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6599/2016
Date of Decision : 21th February, 2017
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
BIMAL JULKA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for R-1
Mr. S. M. Arif, Advocate with Mr. M.
R. Junaidi and Ms. Shabnam
Perween, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.04.2016 passed
by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(„Tribunal‟ for short) in C.P. No.443/2015 in OA No. 4191/2013,
titled Anil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Bimal Julka & Anr..
The order under challenge holds that there was substantial
compliance and the petitioners', if aggrieved, could challenge the
orders passed in accordance with law.
2. The Tribunal disposing of OA No. 4191/2013 vide dated
28.01.2015, had directed the authorities to extend the benefit as
extended by the Patna Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 514/2002 in
Akashwani & Doordarshan Diploma Engineers Association through
its President Vs. UOI & Ors.
3. The operative portion of the order dated 07.09.2009 passed by
the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.
514/2002 reads as under:-
"9. This O.A. is, therefore, allowed. The
respondents are directed to grant the applicants the
pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 as and when they
have completed 12 years service in the pay scale
of Rs.6500-10500. The arrears should also be
paid to the applicants. The respondents are
directed to issue orders regarding ACP promotion
to the applicants within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The arrears may be calculated and paid
to them within one month thereafter.
10. With these directions, this O.A. stands
disposed. No costs."
4. This order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Patna Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.514/2002 was made the
subject-matter of challenge before the Patna High Court in CWJC No.
6451/2010 titled The Union of India & Ors. v. Akashwani and
Doordarshan Diploma Engineers‟ Association. This writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2010, observing that there was
substance in the submission made by the Union of India and that
general directions should not have been issued to cover cases of all
individuals because each case requires consideration under the ACP
Scheme. The Union of India was directed to consider grant of benefit
under the ACP Scheme to the applicants before the Tribunal in OA
No.514/2002 within a period of three months in accordance with law
and subject to the observations made in the said decision.
5. The case of the respondents is that they have considered each
individual case and thereafter passed the speaking orders dated
13.10.2015 denying the claim of the petitioners.
6. We agree with the Tribunal that the petitioners cannot
challenge the orders dated 13.10.2015 in the contempt proceedings.
The scope and ambit of contempt proceedings is limited and restrict to
question of implementation and wilful disobedience. The petitioners
have been granted liberty to file a fresh OA, challenging the order dated
13.10.2015. They may rely on perceived relevant orders and judgments
in support of their contention.
7. We are not inclined to make any observations on merit.
8. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated
13.10.2015 by way of an independent original application.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioners were bona fidely pursuing contempt proceedings as per
advice received. He submits that a fresh original application would be
barred by limitation and prays for suitable directions. We accept the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners and grant the petitioners
liberty to file a fresh original application within one month and on the
same being filed, the original application will not be dismissed on the
ground of limitation.
10. The writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to
costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
b
