SHEETAL SINGH SAINI Vs. ANIL GOSWAMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondents alleging willful and deliberate violation of the directions contained in the order dated 23.12.2013 passed in MA No. 3381/2013, arising out of OA No. 1667/2013.

(2.) LEARNED counsel, Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, appearing for the contempt petitioner, referring to the order dated 23.12.2013 passed in the aforesaid MA has submitted that though this Tribunal had directed the respondents to pay the petitioner pay and allowances, despite not passing any interim order in OA No. 1667/2013, in view of the fact that this Tribunal vide order dated 06.07.2010 passed in OA No. 652/2012 directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his normal tenure of five years in Delhi, the respondents are bound to pay the petitioner pay and allowances for the period from 01.05.2013 to 03.03.2014, which having not been paid, the respondents have committed contempt of this Tribunal. It has also been submitted that in fact by the subsequent order dated 05.02.2014 the aforesaid OA No. 1667/2013 has been allowed directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his five years tenure in Delhi, keeping it open to pass fresh order of posting of the applicant thereafter. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the contempt proceeding may be initiated against the respondents for non -payment of the salary for the aforesaid period and also for initiation of a departmental proceeding by issuing the charge memos dated 03.04.2014 and 26.11.2014 for his alleged unauthorized absence from duty, for the aforesaid period, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Mr. Bhardwaj, in support of his submission has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Anil Ratan Sarkar and others Versus State of W.B. and others : (2001) 5 SCC 327, Union of India and others Versus K.N. Shankarappa : (2001) 1 SCC 582, Prakash Narayan Sharma Versus Burmah Shell Cooperation Housing Society Ltd. : (2002) 7 SCC 46 and Maninderjit Singh Bitta Versus Union of India : (2012) 1 SCC 273.

(3.) WE have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the pleadings.