Full Text
Date of Decision: 12th February 2020
VIDYA PARKASH GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Devendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Sahay, CGSC with Ms. Shritu Anand & Ms. Manu Singh, Advocates
Mohd. Faisal, Advocate for MTNL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
CM APPL.5632-5633/2020 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
The Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal', for short) vide order dated
08.11.2019 which has led to the filing of the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without substantial compliance by the
2020:DHC:1028-DB respondent, the Tribunal has decided to close the contempt proceedings.
2. In this case, the petitioner had filed OA No.1833/2018 which was decided by order dated 09.05.2018 and the following directions were passed:-
3. Thereafter respondent No.2/BSNL passed speaking orders, all dated 04.09.2019, in the case of each of the petitioners in exactly the same terms (except the particulars of the concerned petitioner), paras 4, 5 and 6 of the speaking order, the extract being taken from the case of Akhilesh Kumar, reads as under:- "xxx xxx xxx
(iv) Considering the above factual position, it emerges that the applicant, Sh. Akhilesh Kumar is eligible for promotion to the grade of DE in 2003. However, the applicant Sh. Akhilesh Kumar stood already promoted in DE grade w.e.f. 19.07.1997 i.e. much prior to his entitlement.
(v) Since the applicant, Sh. Akhilesh Kumar stands retired on superannuation on 31.01.2005, no recovery of dues is being carried out on account of his promotion to DET grade.
(vi) In view of foregoing position, no consequential benefits of pay fixation including any pensionary benefit to Sh. Akhilesh Kumar will be accrued in terms of the aforesaid judgment of Apex Court. Hence, payable amount is NIL. xxx xxx xxx"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is more than 75 years of age and, to put a quietus to the matter, is willing to accept the same benefits which have been provided to one Shri P.N. Lal, who was junior to him.
5. Mr. Abhay Kumar Sahay, learned Standing Counsel submits that he would examine the matter as to whether the petitioner can be granted the same benefits which were granted to Shri P.N.Lal.
6. Let this aspect of the matter be considered by the respondent within four weeks from today; and the petitioner be informed about the same immediately thereafter.
7. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same in accordance with law.
8. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. G.S.SISTANI, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. FEBRUARY 12, 2020