NIMAI CHARAN MOHANTY Vs. CHITTARANJAN MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS leading to the case are that initially the applicants preferred an original application bearing No. O.A. 528 of 2000 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench which was subsequently transferred to Cuttack Bench and the same was numbered as O.A. 987 of 2005. Said original application was finally disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.2007 wherein the Tribunal passed the following directions: -

(2.) WHILE deciding the Original Application No. 987 of 2005 the Tribunal has taken cognizance of Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments as well as mentioned that the Railways implemented the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of different divisions and the benefit of Rs. 550 -750 was granted from different dates and at different percentages. It is also to be pointed out that the respondents while filing reply to the original application has mentioned that the Railway Board issued an instruction in the year 1983 vide their letter dated 29.7.1983 relating to restructuring of certain Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts including the cadre of Station Master and Assistant Station Master in different zonal Railways and the same was circulated by South Eastern Railway under their Estt. Sl. No. 160/1983. While issuing these instructions the Railway Board categorically mentioned vide para 9 of the same that the revised percentage prescribed for Station Master/Assistant Station Master cadre will accordingly be allowed depending upon whether the existing cadre restructuring is a combined or a separate one. After the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. 987 of 2005 and also after orders of the respondents the applicants not being satisfied with the same preferred a C.P. (C) No. 54 of 2008 and also C.P. (Criminal) No. 1/2010 under Section 17 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 wherein they have sought a direction to initiate criminal contempt and punish the contemners therein. It is also to be pointed out that the contempt can be initiated against the persons impleaded in the original application only. The Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 54 of 2008 was finally heard and decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.08.2011 and while deciding the same the Tribunal observed as under -

(3.) IT is to be mentioned that the law is well settled that nobody should be permitted to be indulged in immoral acts like forgery, prevarication and motivated falsehood in the judicial proceedings and if some one does so, it must be dealt with appropriately. In case where a false plea is taken with any motive it would definitely hinder, hamper or impede the flow of justice and prevent the Courts from performing their legal duties. It is also to be pointed out as under: