Disposed

Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. Mr Akhilesh Verma Senior Superintenent of Post Officer

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024CAPL/1583/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application filed for non-compliance of an Administrative Tribunal order directing payment of pension. The court held that the Tribunal has exclusive power to punish for its own contempt under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the application was not maintainable in the High Court. The application was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Notice discharged; application disposed of as not maintainable.

Subhash Chandra Tripathi vs Mr Akhilesh Verma Senior… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120711

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1583 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Tripathi

¶5

Opposite Party :- Mr Akhilesh Verma Senior Superintenent Of Post Officer Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶7

Heard the counsel for the applicant.

¶8

The applicant in the present contempt application was working as Wireman "C" in the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Azamgarh. The applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 08.10.2014 passed by the disciplinary authority and the appeal filed against the dismissal order was also rejected vide order dated 26.04.2018. The orders dated 08.10.2014 and 26.04.2018 were challenged by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad through Original Application No. 1427 of 2014 in which a further prayer was made to direct the respondents in the Original Application to pay the entire retiral dues to the applicant including pension and other consequential benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 02.06.2023 allowed the Original Application, quashed the orders dated 08.10.2014 and 26.04.2018 and also directed the respondents to release all retiral dues to the applicant including pension with consequential benefits. However, in its order dated 02.06.2023, the Central Administrative Tribunal gave liberty to the respondents to take necessary actions against the applicant, if they so wish in accordance with the procedure and rules and pass a fresh order against the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶9

The order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged by the respondents in this Court through Writ - A No. 19151 of 2023 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

The petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.2023 with the observation that the disciplinary authority may issue a fresh notice to the delinquent employee to modify the penalty awarded within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. It was observed in the order passed by this Court that the disciplinary authority may pass a fresh reasoned order with respect to quantum of penalty, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date the delinquent employee furnished his reply. It appears from the records annexed with the present application that Contempt Petition No. 0128 of 2023 was filed by the employee before the Tribunal pleading contempt by the respondents for non-compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal. The said contempt petition was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal with the following observations:-

¶11

"4. Therefore, it appears from the Para No.8 of the aforesaid order that the order passed by the Tribunal has been modified and the respondents were directed to issue the fresh notice within a period of 02 weeks. It is orally submitted by the respondents' counsel that the notice was issued and the reply has already been received and the decision will be taken within a short period. But it is also submitted that the notice could not issued within the period of 02 weeks (which was prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court) because the order was communicated after sometime. Therefore, some delay has been caused and respondent is moving to the Hon'ble High Court for the extension also.

¶12

5. Looking to the aforesaid development, this contempt petition does not survive. If any order is not complied then, the contempt will lie before the Hon'ble High Court for non compliance of the order passed in Writ. Therefore, no further action is required in this contempt petition.

¶13

6. In view of this Court, no further proceedings are necessary. Hence, the proceedings are dropped and the respondent is discharged from his liability. "

¶14

Subsequently, the applicant filed the present contempt application in which notices were issued to the opposite party.

¶15

Today, when the case was taken up, Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate representing the opposite party states that the applicant had retired on 30.11.2014, therefore, no disciplinary action can now be instituted against the applicant / delinquent employee by the disciplinary authority.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt application.

¶17

The counsel for the applicant states that the present contempt application still survives because the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 02.06.2023 for payment of retiral dues including pension with consequential benefits have not yet been complied by the opposite party.

¶18

The direction was issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal in its judgment passed in Original Application No. 1427 of 2014. The act of the respondents in not paying the retiral dues including pension to the applicant violates the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal and do not violate any orders passed by this Court. Under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Central Administrative Tribunal has the powers to itself punish for its contempt. Even otherwise, the Central Administrative Tribunal is not a court subordinate to the High Courts and the High Courts only exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 on the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the contempt application is not

¶20

maintainable as such and the applicant has the remedy to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the present contempt application is disposed of . The file of the case be consigned to records. Notice is discharged.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Vipasha

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIPASHA MUKHERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. Mr Akhilesh Verma Senior Superintenent of Post Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Tripathi v. Mr Akhilesh Verma Senior Superintenent of Post Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Ram vs Prabhat Pandey, Tehsildar

Smt Dhanno Devi vs Pankaj Kumar Rai, Investigating Officer

Abhishek Agrawal vs Mr. Ashish Jain, Principal Judge, Family Court

Durgawati Devi vs Jay Prakash, Naib Tehsildar

Neelam Rani vs Sri Indra Vikram Singh

Ashok Yadav vs Sh Krishna Karunesh, IAS