High Court of Meghalaya
Union Of India & Ors. vs . Uma Shankar Shukla on 12 May, 2022
Serial No. 04 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 332 of 2020 with
MC (WPC) No. 172 of 2020
Date of order: 12.05.2022
Union of India & Ors. vs. Uma Shankar Shukla
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Dr. N. Mozika, ASG with
Ms. S. Rumthao, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. A. Khan, Adv. with
Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Adv.
i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
The Union questions the propriety of an order dated September
27, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati on the
respondent's petition before the Tribunal. There is an ancillary challenge
to a subsequent order of the Tribunal dated February 4, 2020 passed on a
review petition filed by the Union. It appears that the present proceedings
have been prompted by contempt notices or contempt applications filed
before the Tribunal.
2. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter in any great
detail, in view of the order proposed to be made. It may only be noticed
that the present challenge to the order dated September 27, 2016 could
not have been made, particularly since the Union had acted on the basis
of the order dated September 27, 2016 and had considered the case of the
respondent and informed the respondent of such consideration by a letter
dated February 16, 2018, issued long before the institution of the present
petition.
3. It is elementary that once an order is acted upon, it will not be
open to the party acting in accordance therewith to question the propriety
of the order. The fact that contempt notices or applications may have been
issued or filed would make no difference.
4. Indeed, it may be noticed that the effective direction in the order
dated September 27, 2016 was for the respondent's "case (to) be
considered in the neighbouring division" by the employer. For good or
bad, the employer considered the matter and communicated the result of
the consideration by the letter dated February 16, 2018. As to whether the
consideration was proper or not or as to whether relevant considerations
were taken into account in such regard, need not be gone into in the
present proceedings. All that is evident is that the Union did consider the
case of the respondent herein and did not deem the respondent
appropriate to be promoted to the relevant post. Once such consideration
took place and the result thereof was communicated, there may not be
any contempt; though the decision could still have been assailed in
accordance with law.
5. That a review petition was filed by the Union herein and has been
dismissed by a non-speaking order would make no difference since, in
course of deciding the review, the validity of the letter dated February 16,
2018 could not have been taken into account.
6. Accordingly, WP(C) No. 332 of 2020 is disposed of by recording
that the Union has already acted on the basis of the order which is sought
to be challenged herein; thus, rendering the challenge meaningless.
However, the merits of the Union's consideration of the matter are not
gone into and the respondent is left free to challenge the same in
accordance with law, without resorting to proceedings in contempt. If a
challenge in such regard is carried to the Tribunal within the next eight
weeks by the respondent herein, the Union will not urge the ground of
delay and will facilitate the consideration of the matter on merits.
7. It is also recorded that the fundamental premise of the Union's
case is that erroneous information was furnished by its official following
an RTI query by the respondent herein. Such aspect of the matter is
referred to in the letter dated February 16, 2018.
8. It is made clear that the observations herein should not prejudice
either side in course of any future proceedings.
9. MC (WPC) No. 172 of 2020 is disposed of.
10. There will be no order as to costs.
(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
12.05.2022
"Sylvana PS"
