Disposed

V.a.Mathew v. P.C.Chathurvedi, I.A.S.

Kerala HC16 Aug 2011OP (CAT)/2680/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

intervenor. The Court disposed the application by directing the Tribunal to issue notice to the petitioner, hear objections on jurisdiction and merits, and communicate proposed modifications before passing final adverse orders during the review.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Central Administrative Tribunal to issue notice to the petitioner, hear objections on jurisdiction and merits, and communicate proposed modifications before passing final orders.

V.a.Mathew Vs P.C.Chathurvedi, I.A.S. — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

OP (CAT).No. 2680 of 2011(Z)

¶6

---------------------------AGAINST AN ORDER IN C.P.(C) NO.5/2011 DT.20.7.2011 IN AN ORDER IN OA.513/2005 DT.12.1.2007 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶7

.................... PETITIONER

¶8

--------------------V.A.MATHEW,SR.SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU SMT.P.MEENAKUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

---------------

¶12

1. P.C.CHATHURVEDI, I.A.S, SECRETARY, LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SRAMSAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI.

¶13

2. R.SUBHASH, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(I), REGIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

3. KAVITHA GEORGE, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, II(ADM) PROVIDENT FUND, REGIONAL OFFICE PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶15

4. N.GOPALAKRISHNAN,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI 682 017.

¶16

5. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH , REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANAPPATTY PARAMBU,ERNAKULAM -682 017.

¶17

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.(CAT) NO.2680/2011

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶21

EXT.P1:	COPY OF ANNEXURES A1 TO A5 FILED BEFORE THE C.A.T. AS C(P)C NO.5/2011.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF ORDER IN R.P.NO.124/2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.10252/2007.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF ORDER OF C.A.T. IN O.A.NO.513/2005.

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

PA TO JUDGE

¶24

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶25

O.P.(CAT).No.2680 OF 2011

¶26

Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2011

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶29

C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶30

The petitioner filed an Original Application before the C.A.T. contending that he was eligible to be considered for promotion from the post of UDC to Assistant in the DPC held in 1999. The Tribunal accepted the contention and passed an order directing the respondents to consider his case. This order of the C.A.T. got confirmed in W.P.(C) filed before this Court. However, since the respondents did not comply with the order of the C.A.T. confirmed by this Court, petitioner moved a contempt application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Ext.P3 observed that the very basis of the order violation of which is complained of was rendered based on the assumption that DPC was held on 14.9.1999. The respondents appear to have canvassed the position before the Tribunal that DPC was not infact held on 14.9.1999. The Tribunal vide Ext.P3 order therefore called for the records for verifying the factual

¶31

O.P.(CAT) No.2680/2011

¶32

¶33

position. Petitioner has filed this O.P.(C.A.T) challenging Ext.P3 order issued by the Tribunal in the contempt application on the ground that the Tribunal apparently proposes to review the original order which was confirmed by this Court. The learned standing counsel took notice for respondents at admission stage and opposed the O.P.(C.A.T) on the ground that Tribunal has not passed any adverse orders against the petitioner.

¶34

After hearing both sides and after going though the O.P., what we notice is that the Tribunal doubts the correctness of the assumptions of fact based on which original order was passed, the violation of which is complained in the contempt petition. We are in the view that the Tribunal rightly called for the records because without verifying the records the Tribunal cannot ascertain the facts. As of now, the Tribunal has not proposed to recall their earlier order which is the apprehension of the petitioner. We do not want to go into the authority of the Tribunal to review their earlier order because the Tribunal has not proposed it. However, we feel that if the Tribunal's original order contains mistakes or the direction issued is based on

¶35

O.P.(CAT) No.2680/2011

¶36

¶37

mistaken assumption of facts and if Tribunal feels suo motu review is called for, they should issue notice to the petitioner, hear the petitioner's objection about the Tribunals jurisdiction and on merits and no adverse order should be passed without hearing the appellant on the modification proposed by the Tribunal which should be communicated to the petitioner before passing final orders. We dispose of the W.P.(C) directing Tribunal to consider the petitioner's objection before passing final orders in the matter.

¶38

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶39

( P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

¶40

ps/16/8

V.a.Mathew v. P.C.Chathurvedi, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.a.Mathew v. P.C.Chathurvedi, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Gomathy Vs Union of India & 4 Others

Ernakulathappan Charitable Educational Vs Director of Technical Education,Governme

The Director, Rajagiri School of Enginee Vs Government of Kerala

D.K.Goel Vs Anandavally

C.Geethakumar Vs the Asst.Supdt.of Police

Kail Ltd. Vs State of Kerala