RADHIKA BAHL Vs. D.K. UPADHYAYA DIG (PERS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTEMPT is averred of the judgment dated 20th September, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 2475/2011 filed by the petitioner. Vide para no.15 of the said judgment, it was held that the petitioner would be entitled to have her seniority reckoned from the date she was initially appointed. Vide para no.19 of the said judgment, a mandamus was issued to the "Competent Authority" to treat the writ petition as a representation praying that power be exercised under Rule 88 of the CCS Pension Rules and applicability of Sub - Rule 6 of Rule 26 of CCS Pension Rules be waived qua the petitioner and to take a decision thereon within sixteen weeks.

(2.) THE counsel for the respondent has drawn attention to the Seniority List (at page no.167 of the paper book) drawn up in pursuance to the aforesaid direction and in which seniority list, the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.18 and to the Certificate dated 3rd May, 2014 issued by the petitioner of having seen the said seniority list and being satisfied therewith.

(3.) THE senior counsel for the petitioner though has not urged any argument qua the delay in compliance of the order but has contended that the order dated 17th April, 2012 in compliance of the mandamus issued is not in terms of the judgment and spirit thereof and thus the respondents are in contempt. It is contended that though Rule 88 (supra) is noticed in the said order but has not been properly applied. It is further contended that the said order is passed on stale material i.e. on the basis of the advice of Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) which had been obtained prior to the judgment and which advice obviously did not take into account the observations made in the judgment and also did not consider granting exemption to the petitioner from Rule 26(6) by invoking power under Rule 88 (supra). It is argued that the respondent in compliance of the order ought to have taken fresh advice from the DOPT. It is further argued that the order dated 17th April, 2012 merely reiterates the earlier order.