RAMESH CHAND AND ORS. Vs. PADMINI SINGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CP -452/2014 and CP -453/2014 were filed in OA - 3967/2013 and OA -3968/2013 respectively, which were disposed of by a common order dated 21.07.2014 by this Tribunal. The respondents had been directed to consider request of re -employment of the applicants in these two OAs in terms of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi s letter dated 27.01.2012 and keeping in view our observations in the order dated 21.07.2014, and pass a speaking and reasoned order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(2.) THE respondents thereafter passed an order dated 30.09.2014 which was considered by this Tribunal on 07.11.2014 and after finding the compliance to be deficient, further one week time was granted for implementation of the Tribunal s order in OA -3967/2013. When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of this Tribunal had already complied with and a speaking and reasoned order was passed on 03.12.2014. A response to this order passed by the respondents has been filed by the applicant in CP -452/2014. Learned counsel for the respondent contemnor further submitted that it was the prerogative of the department to judge the professional fitness of the applicants for the purpose of re -employment, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The cases that were quoted by the applicants in the OA had been examined once again and it was found that in those cases, there was significant improvement in the results in the year preceding their re -employment. The department, therefore, rightly rejected the request of the applicants for re -employment considering the sharp decline in the results in the period immediately before their superannuation. He further submitted that no case of contempt could be made out as the respondent contemnor s department had already passed an order in compliance of the direction of this Tribunal and no willful disobedience could be attributed to the respondent contemnor. If the applicant was not satisfied with this order, he could exercise options as available under the law.

(3.) APPLICANTS have filed both these CPs under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under: