SHEELA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petitioner though has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11/6/1998 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in Contempt Petition No.6/1997 and for declaration that respondents are guilty of contempt of Court for disobedience of the order dated 22/1/1997 passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No.533/1993, in view of subsequent development, i.e. death of original petitioner, the legal heirs of original petitioner, who are brought on record, have restricted their claim in the petition only for direction to respondents to pay retiral benefits to them.

(2.) The petition arises out of peculiar facts. The petitioner, who was an ex -serviceman, was appointed by the respondents as Apprentice Assistant Wireless Inspector (Class II) vide order dated 11/3/1963. After he was medically found fit, he was posted on 28/3/1963. He continuously served till 14/7/1976 and thereafter, went on medical leave till 26/9/1984. It is the case of the petitioner that during that period, he was suffering from mental ailment and was taking treatment from Mental Hospital, Nagpur. It is also the case of the petitioner that when he went to the respondents for resuming his duties on 27/9/1984, he came to know that he was already removed from service by order dated 26/5/1984. The petitioner thereafter issued notice to respondents on 19/10/1984 under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure and filed Regular Civil Suit bearing No.186/1985. On Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 coming into force, the suit came to be automatically transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal and the proceedings came to be re -numbered as Transfer Application No.30/1986. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 30/11/1987 partly allowed the original application and directed that petitioner should be jointly examined by the Civil Surgeon, Nagpur and Railway Medical Officer, Nagpur and if in the joint examination, he is found to be fit, he should be permitted to resume duties. This was directed to be done prior to 31/12/1987.

(3.) It appears that respondents did not make arrangement for the joint medical examination within the prescribed period and vide communication dated 14/2/1989 petitioner was informed that in the medical examination, he was not found fit for the post of Tele -communication Inspector and as such, could not be reinstated to the post of Tele -communication Inspector. It was further stated in the said communication that if petitioner desires, he may submit his application requesting for alternative employment. Perusal of application dated 21/2/1989 made by the petitioner shows that he requested for allotment of any post for which he would be considered fit as per previous medical examination. Vide another communication dated 7/7/1989 issued by the respondents, it was informed to the petitioner that since there was no direction by the learned Tribunal to reinstate him in any other post, his request in that regard could not be considered. The petitioner, in the meantime, retired from service and as such, filed a review application before the learned Tribunal. The same was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 22/1/1997 holding that since petitioner has already retired from service in 1993, the respondents should disburse retiral benefits to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.