Naveen Kumar And Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1742 P&H

CWP-9437-2021                                                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND CHANDIGARH
107 (PROCEEDINGS THROUGH V.C.)
                                                     CWP-9437-2021


                                               Date of decision: 04.05.2021


NAVEEN KUMAR AND OTHERS                                    ...PETITIONERS


                  V/S


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS


                                                          ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA


Present:    Mr. Harkirat Singh Ghuman, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel,
            for respondents No. 2 and 3.

                  ***

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.09.2016

(Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh

Bench, whereby contempt petition preferred by the petitioners alleging non-

compliance of the order dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed in O.A.

No. 836/HR/2013 disposing of the said O.A. with certain directions, was

dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to avail of any

remedy available under law qua the order dated 15.05.2015 read with order

dated 18/26.07.2013 holding therein the petitioners ineligible for

regularization of their services and order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-2)

1 of 7

passed in Misc. Application No. 60/1888/2019 in CP No. 60/77/2015

dismissing the said application for giving effect to the statement given by

the respondents during the contempt proceedings on 20.09.2016, stands

dismissed.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the petitioners have filed OA No. 836 of 2013 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench for regularization of their

services in the Income Tax Department where they were working

continuously as casual/daily wage workers for the past many years.

Instructions dated 09.05.2013/13.05.2013 were issued by the Central Board

of Direct Taxes, New Delhi-respondent No. 4 directing all the Chief

Commissioners of Income Tax and Director Generals of Income Tax not to

employ casual/daily wage workers for regular work and a further prayer was

made for regularization of their services against available vacant posts. The

said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal by setting

aside/quashing the above-mentioned impugned Instructions dated

09.05.2013/13.05.2013 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and

ordered the setting in motion of the process of consideration of the claims of

the petitioners for regularization of their services from the date of the order

i.e. 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-4).

3. When the respondents failed to comply with the above order

dated 01.07.2014, Contempt Petition No. 77 of 2015 was instituted by the

petitioners. Notice was issued to the respondents on 16.04.2015.

Reply/compliance report was submitted by the respondents on 18.05.2015

stating therein that the claim of the petitioners for regularization was, on

consideration, found to be non-acceptable as they were ineligible for

2 of 7

regularization. A speaking order dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure P-6) was

passed. Petitioners placed on record additional documents to support their

claim for regularization vide Misc. Application No. 808 of 2015 with a

further pleading that their claim has wrongly been rejected. The matter

finally came up for hearing before the Central Administrative Tribunal on

20.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) when the contempt petition was dismissed as

infructuous in the light of the order dated 15.05.2015 read with order dated

18/26.07.2013, whereby the claim of the petitioners, on consideration, was

rejected having been found to be ineligible for regularization of their

services. Liberty was also given to the petitioners to avail of their remedy

qua these impugned orders.

4. Petitioners have also pointed out that the respondents

challenged the order passed by the Tribunal dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-

4) passed in O.A. No. 828 of 2013 by filing CWP No. 1172 of 2016. The

said writ petition was withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated

25.09.2017 (Annexure P-15) seeking liberty to file a review petition before

the Tribunal. The Court permitted the withdrawal of the writ petition by

observing that it would be open to the respondents to take recourse to the

remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.

5. It is asserted that the petitioners waited for the respondents to

file the review application before the Tribunal but when no such step was

taken, petitioners filed MA No. 1888 of 2019 praying for giving directions

to the respondents to comply with the statement given by the counsel for the

respondents during the contempt proceedings on 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-

1) to re-consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their

services. Petitioners have asserted that the respondents had virtually

3 of 7

accepted the fact that they have passed the order dated 15.05.2015 wrongly

but the Tribunal, while passing the order dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-1),

did not take that into consideration. The said application was dismissed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure

P-2) by observing that the application preferred by the petitioners was a

misuse of process of law and wastage of precious time of the Court. Cost of

`20,000/- for abusing the process of law and misleading the Court was also

imposed. These orders passed by the Tribunal dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure

P-1) and 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) have been assailed by the petitioners.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that vide order dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-4), not only the Tribunal had

proceeded to set aside/quash the impugned orders dated 09/13.05.2013 and

22.05.2013 but had also proceeded to direct the respondents to set in motion

the process for regularization of the services of the petitioners. The claim of

the petitioners for regularization being covered by the instructions of the

respondents as well as the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and other Courts could not have been rejected. He,

therefore, asserts that when the order dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-4) had

not been complied with by the respondents, order dated 20.09.2016

(Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the

contempt petition preferred by the petitioners dismissing the same as

infructuous cannot sustain rather the Tribunal should have proceeded to call

upon the respondents for non-compliance of the order passed by the

Tribunal granting the benefit of the regularization of the services of the

petitioners. He asserts that only a formal order was passed by the

respondents but the Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing the

4 of 7

order dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-1), had proceeded on a wrong

assumption that there was only a direction for consideration of the claim of

the petitioners and the respondents had, therefore, proceeded to consider the

claim of the petitioners for regularization and had found them ineligible

vide order dated 15.05.2015 read with order dated 18/26.07.2013. He, thus,

contends that these orders being in violation of the order passed by the

Tribunal dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-4) cannot sustain.

7. As regards the order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the Misc. Application

preferred by the petitioners, counsel for the petitioners asserts that the

petitioners had filed the said application in the light of the fact that the order

dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) was not in consonance with the directions

issued by the Tribunal in the Original Application preferred by the

petitioners. They had only sought implementation of the statement which

was given by the counsel for the respondents during the pendency of the

contempt proceedings. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders cannot

sustain and deserve to be set aside.

8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned

orders.

9. A perusal of the order dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 828-HR-2013, which

was preferred by the petitioners, would make it apparent that no order for

regularization of the services of the petitioners was passed. The Tribunal

had proceeded to issue directions to the respondents to initiate the process

for consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their

5 of 7

services in the light of the principle settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and the other Courts.

10. As is apparent from the said order, the process for

consideration was to be initiated, which, admittedly, the respondents did

initiate. No doubt the respondents have challenged the said order dated

01.07.2014 by filing CWP No. 1172 of 2016 but mere challenging of the

said order would not, in any manner, render the orders, which have been

passed by the Tribunal, inoperative unless stayed. The factum that the writ

petition was withdrawn vide order dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure P-15) is not

in dispute and, therefore, the challenge to the said order or otherwise does

not make much of a difference.

11. In any case, irrespective of the fact that the writ petition had

been preferred by the respondents, the Central Administrative Tribunal,

while considering Contempt Petition No.77 of 2015 which was preferred by

the petitioners, proceeded to decide the same vide order dated 20.09.2016

(Annexure P-1). The Tribunal had rightly taken into consideration the order

dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed in O.A. No. 828/HR/2013 to come

to a conclusion that the directions issued by the Tribunal had been duly

complied with by considering the claim of the petitioners for regularization

of their services, wherein unfortunately, they were found to be ineligible

vide order dated 15.05.12015 read with order dated 18/26.07.2013, which

was placed on record with reply/compliance report dated 18.05.2015. The

Tribunal has rightly held that the contempt petition has been rendered

infructuous and had granted liberty to the petitioners to avail of any remedy

available under law qua the orders which had been passed by the

respondents.

6 of 7

12. In the light of the said order having been passed on 20.09.2016

(Annexure P-1), there was no occasion on the part of the petitioners to have

waited for more than three years before filing Misc. Application No.

60/1888/2019 and that too, on a plea that during the pendency of the

contempt petition, a statement was given by the counsel for the respondents

for again considering the claim of the petitioners for regularization despite

there being orders dated 15.05.2015 and 18/26.07.2013 passed by the

respondents. The said application has, therefore, rightly been dismissed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench on 16.01.2020

(Annexure P-2) being misuse of process of law and for wastage of the

precious time of the Court.

13. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere

with the orders impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) and 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-2)

and, therefore, dismiss the present writ petition.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

(ASHOK KUMAR VERMA) JUDGE May 04, 2021 pj

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

7 of 7