Ernakulam CAT case : Contempt Petition filed regarding up gradation of Grade Pay of Inspector Posts w.e.f 01.01.2006
The Contempt Petition regarding up gradation of Grade Pay of Inspector Posts w.e.f 01.01.2006, has been filed yesterday before Hon'ble CAT, Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 289/2013. The case is expected to be listed in one or two days. The draft of the contempt petition is placed herewith for information to all members.
************
Before The Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ernakulam Bench
(Application under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971)
CP/180/00 289 /2016
in
OA No.289 of 2013 on the file of this Hon'ble Tribunal (Order dated 16-10-2015)
1. Details of the petitioners:
1. All India Association of Inspector Posts &
Assistant Superintendent of Posts,
represented by Vilas S Ingale, S/o the late Sri. Sopan Ingale, aged 56 years,
Senior Postmaster (adhoc) Thane HO, Thane 400601,
residing at 203/A, Shri Sai Shraddha Co-Op Housing Society Ltd.,
Kalyan-Ambernath Road, Shanti Nagar, Ulhasnagar-421 003.
2. Permanand Kumar, S/o. the late Yugal Kishore Prasad,
aged 38 years, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kerala Circle, Office of the Postmaster General, Northern Region, Calicut
presently working on deputation as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,
Project Managment Unit (PMU), 5th Floor, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi,
residing at House No. 341, Block No. B-14, Himagiri Apartments,
Sector-34, NOIDA 201 301.
3. Niranjan Kumar, S/o. Sri. Suresh Prasad Sah,
aged 34 years, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kerala Circle (presently working on deputation as Deputy Manager, Centre for Excellance in Postal Technology, Mysore)
residing at Quarter No. III/3, PTC Campus Staff Quarters,
PTC Mysore, Karnataka-570 010.
2. Details of the Respondents:
Sri. Ashok Lavasa,
Fathers name and age not known to the petitioners,
Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure
New Delhi 110 001.
3. Nature of Contempt Petition Alleged And Material Facts:
The petitioners herein are the Applicants in OA No. 289 of 2013 on the file of this Hon’ble Tribunal. The petitioners herein filed the above OA seeking to declare that the Inspectors (Posts) under the Department of Posts are legally eligible and entitled to grant of the revised pay structure of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in the Pay Band PB-2 with effect from 01-01-2006 in terms of Annexure A-8 Office Memorandum dated 13-11-2009 and Annexure A-10 OM dated 16-11-2009 and denial of it to the Inspector (Posts) is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and to set aside Annexure A-22 and A-23. The petitioners also sought to direct the respondents to grant the Inspector (Posts) the revised pay structure of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in the Pay Band PB-2 as has been granted to Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in Central Secretariat Service recruited through Combined Graduate Level Examination-Scheme A by the Staff Selection Commission with effect from their date of entitlement with consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances and for other consequential reliefs.
The above Original Application was finally heard on 09-09-2015 and disposed by Order dated 16-10-2015 directing the respondent No.1 (respondent herein) to send Annexure A-19 Order along with the representation made by the 1st Applicant Association, the recommendations made by the Department of Posts thereon along with copies of the relevant portion of the 4th, 5th and 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations regarding the pay of Inspector (Posts) to the Member-Secretary of the 7th CPC requesting to making appropriate recommendations. Respondent No.1 shall also submit an explanation before the 7th CPC as to why despite the Cabinet Resolution accepting the recommendations in paragraph 7.6.14 of the report of the 6th CPC, the officials in the Finance Ministry took a different view and also under what authority the said official made such notings in Annexure A-22 file Note. In the event the 7th Pay Commission has reached the final stage of its proceedings and is not in a position to include this matter in its report, then the Finance Secretary/ 1st respondent shall at his level consider the matter as directed by this Tribunal in OA No. 381/2010 keeping in view the detailed proposal with justification submitted by the Department of Posts, the detailed observations made by the Tribunal in the earlier O.A and also the present order and shall pass a detailed and speaking order addressing all these points within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. A photocopy of the above Order dated 16-10-2015 in O.A No. 289 of 2013 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure P-1
1. The Department of Posts forwarded the judgment along with File No. 2-12/2013-PCC on 25-04-2016 as evidenced from the reply given under the Right to Information Act. A photocopy of the above reply dated 11-07-2016 along with File Note in File No. 2-12/2013-PCC is produced herewith and marked as Annexure P-2
2. The 1st respondent received the copy of the Order in OA No. 289 of 2013 on 02-05-2016. However, the respondent failed and deliberately failed to implement Annexure P-1 without any lawful excuse and justifiable ground till date.
The respondents are duty bound to implement Annexure P-1 Order within the time limit stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal in Annexure P-1. However, no steps have been taken by the respondents to implement Annexure P-1 Order even after the lapse of more than 10 months. There is a wilful and conscious refusal to implement the lawful Orders of this Honourable Tribunal on the part of the respondents as is exhibited by their studied indifference in complying with Annexure P-1 Order. Te conduct of the respondent is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice and brings it into disrespect and exhibits a desire to harass the petitioners. It amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It constitutes contempt of Court (Civil) punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The respondents cannot refuse to implement, the directions and orders contained in Annexure P-1 Order of this Honourable Tribunal within the stipulated time limit. The non-implementation of Annexure P-1 Order by the respondents is a deliberate and wilful disobedience to Annexure P-1 Order of this Honourable Tribunal and defiance to the authority of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, the respondents have rendered themselves liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
It is submitted that Contempt proceeding against a person who has failed to comply with the Court's Order serves a dual purpose! (1) Vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct and (2) coercion to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Aligarh Municipal Board Vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union reported in AIR 1970 SC - 1767. The respondent cannot offer any valid or good reason for not complying with the order or defer the implementation in disregard of the specific time-limit set in the Order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
It is submitted that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the respondents are guilty of wilful and deliberate disobedience to the lawful directions and orders issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal in Annexure P-1 Order dated 16-10-2015 in OA No.289 of 2013. The respondents are guilty of committing civil contempt and they are liable to be dealt with for the above contumacious conduct under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Relief
In the circumstances adumbrated above, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to proceed against the respondents for committing Civil Contempt of this Hon'ble Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for securing enforcement of Annexure P-1 Order to meet the ends of justice.
Verification
We, All India Association of Inspector Posts & Assistant Superintendent of Posts, represented by Vilas S Ingale, S/o the late Sri. Sopan Ingale, aged 56 years, Senior Postmaster (adhoc) Thane HO, Thane 400601, residing at 203/A, Shri Sai Shraddha Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Kalyan-Ambernath Road, Shanti Nagar, Ulhasnagar-421 003, 2) Permanand Kumar, S/o. the late Yugal Kishore Prasad, aged 38 years, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Kerala Circle, Office of the Postmaster General, Northern Region, Calicut presently working on deputation as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Project Managment Unit (PMU), 5th Floor, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi, residing at House No. 341, Block No. B-14, Himagiri Apartments, Sector-34, NOIDA 201 301, 3) Niranjan Kumar, S/o. Sri. Suresh Prasad Sah, aged 34 years, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Kerala Circle (presently working on deputation as Deputy Manager, Centre for Excellence in Postal Technology, Mysore) residing at Quarter No. III/3, PTC Campus Staff Quarters, PTC Mysore, Karnataka-570 010 do hereby verify that the contents of above paragraphs are true to our personal knowledge and that we have not suppressed any material facts.
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2016 at Ernakulam
1. Shri Vilas Sopan Ingale
2. Shri Permanand Kumar
3. Shri Niranjan Kumar
Counsel for the Petitioners
→
0 comments:
Post a Comment