SUBHENDU SEN Vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner served in the Army- Medical Corp from 1969 to 1993. While he was the Lieutenant Colonel, he was court marshalled for four charges. He was exonerated on first charge. He was however, found guilty of three charges, which included misappropriation and absence without leave. THE General Court Martial awarded the punishment to be cashiered and to forfeit four years of his past service for the purpose of loss of pension. THE confirming authority remitted the matter for re-consideration of first charge. In obedience thereto, the General Court Martial re-assembled and confirmed their earlier finding on the first charge but, in their proceedings dated 07.05.1994, imposed the punishment of forfeiture of arrears of pay and allowances and other public money due to him at the time of cashiering. THE petitioner's appeal under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 failed. He assailed the same in W.P.No.27714 of 1996. THE same was allowed setting aside the order of the General Court Martial.

(2.) DURING its pendency, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why his pensionary benefits should not be withheld. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.09.1995. The Government of India passed orders on 24.12.1996 forfeiting all pensionary benefits. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.3923 of 1998 challenging the order dated 24.12.1996 of the Government of India. By order, dated 18.08.2009, a learned single Judge of this Court set aside the said order and directed the Government of India to re-consider the issue afresh under Regulation 16(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (the Regulations, for brevity) in the light of the observations made in the Order of the learned Single Judge as well as the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Brig.A.K.Malhotra (Retd) v. Union of India (1) 1997 (2) Labour and Industrial Cases 2005. The writ appeal, being W.A.No.1966 of 1999, was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us (Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) on 30.06.2008. The Government of India and three others filed Review W.A.M.P.No.2655 of 2008. The same was also disposed of by this Court on 27.02.2009 directing the Government to consider the matter under Regulation 16(a) of the Regulations. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the said review petition.

(3.) SRI G.Ramachandra Rao, counsel for petitioner, however, submits that after obtaining a copy of the order in review application, the petitioner made representation on 28.04.2009, in vain. The petitioner then sent a notice dated 01.07.2009 through his lawyer to the first respondent requesting him to consider the matter in the light of the directions given by this Court. In response to which, the office of the Head Quarters of MoD, Adjutant General Branch, sent a reply dated 18.09.2009 informing that the petitioner's pension case is under active consideration. In the meanwhile, Army Recruiting Office, Secunderabad, asked the petitioner to furnish details of his financial status and other aspects. The petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 07.08.2009 furnishing the required details. Thereafter, there was correspondence between the petitioner and the Office of the Deputy Director, AG', PS-5, and Director, OIC, MPRS (O) informing that the petitioner's representation was sent to concerned office for necessary action. But no orders were passed and therefore, petitioner filed the instant contempt case.