Delhi High Court
Ratan Lal vs Durga Shankar Mishra & Ors on 17 June, 2020
SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR
17.06.2020 19:48
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th June, 2020
+ CONT.CAS(C) 252/2020 & CM APPLs. 11061/2020, 11062/2020,
11063/2020
RATAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor and Ms. Ayshi
Rajput, Advocates.
versus
DURGA SHANKAR MISHRA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Rohan Anand and Mr. Waize Ali
Noor, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
2. The present contempt petition has been filed by Mr Ratan Lal, a
Group 'A' employee, who was working as an Executive Engineer with
CPWD. This contempt petition has been filed in view of the fact that the
Petitioner's dues in terms of the judgment dated 20th November, 2019 have
not been released.
3. Ms. Richa Kapoor, ld. counsel for the Petitioner, submits that vide the
said judgment, the ld. Division Bench had upheld the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, "CAT"),
quashing the charge sheet against the Petitioner dated 9th September, 2004 as
well as the disciplinary proceedings against him. Ld. counsel submits that
upon the order of the CAT being upheld by the ld. Division Bench of this
Court, all legitimate dues of the Petitioner ought to have been paid to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.06.2020 18:49
Petitioner, which has not been done. Ld. counsel submits that the Petitioner
is suffering from a very serious spinal disease which requires surgery and
his wife is also suffering from cancer. She therefore submits that the
Petitioner has urgent need of the money which is due and payable to him as
per the order of the ld. Division Bench.
4. Ms. Kapoor, ld. counsel, further submits that the stand of the
Respondents in the counter affidavit, that the Union of India is likely to file
an SLP, does not justify the non-payment of the consequential benefits due
to the Petitioner as no SLP stands filed even on date, though the judgment
was passed in November, 2019. Ld. counsel submits that the second ground
taken by the Respondents is that there is another charge sheet which was
quashed, the challenge to which is pending before this Court. She has taken
this Court through the orders passed in the said matter, where, after the
Tribunal has quashed the charge sheet, no stay has been granted by the ld.
Division Bench. Thus, according to ld. counsel, even the second charge
sheet cannot be relied upon by the Union of India to withhold the benefits
which are liable to be paid to the Petitioner.
5. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, ld. CGSC appearing for the Union of India,
submits that the amounts are not liable to be paid. He raises three grounds: -
i. that the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to approach the CAT
and not by filing a contempt petition in the present case;
ii. that the Union of India is likely to file an SLP challenging the order
dated 20th November, 2019; and
iii. that there is a second charge sheet dated 21st March 2005, which was
issued against the Petitioner which was also quashed by CAT.
However, the Union of India has challenged the same before this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.06.2020 18:49
Court in W.P.(C) 5287/2006 and 5288/2006 which is still pending.
Thus, while the said challenge is pending, the amounts cannot be
released to the Petitioner.
6. Mr. Kirtiman Singh further submits that the Petitioner was
compulsorily retired in February, 2010. If he had continued his service, he
would have retired in December, 2011. Ld. counsel submits that w.e.f.
February, 2010, retirement benefits are being given to the Petitioner.
However, he does not question the fact that the emoluments due to the
Petitioner would have been different if the date of retirement is deemed to be
December, 2011. Ld. counsel submits that the Petitioner is also claiming
promotional benefits, which he is not entitled to in view of office
memorandum dated 14th September, 1992.
7. In contempt jurisdiction, this Court is only concerned with the
question as to whether the order of which contempt is alleged has been
complied with or not. The order of the ld. Division Bench has clearly upheld
the quashing of the charge sheet. Once the quashing of the charge sheet
takes place, whatever are the consequences of the said quashing would have
to follow and the benefits of the same would have to be given to the
Petitioner. The proposed filing of an SLP against the said order would not be
sufficient ground not to comply with the same, especially when the
limitation period has already lapsed. Further, even in the second charge
sheet which has been quashed, the ld. Division Bench has specially refused
to stay the order.
8. In view of the overall facts and circumstances, including the medical
condition of the Petitioner and his wife, all the consequential benefits which
the Petitioner is entitled to in law upon the quashing of the charge sheet shall
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.06.2020 18:49
now be paid to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.
9. No further orders are called for. The petition and all pending
applications are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JUNE 17, 2020/MR/T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:17.06.2020 18:49
