K P CHOUBEY Vs. VEENA DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, husband of Late Padma Tiwari knocked at the doors of M.P. Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') invoking its contempt jurisdiction under section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') on the foundation that the respondents had committed contempt of Court by not complying with the order passed by the Tribunal O.A. No. 3807/1990. The Tribunal allowed the application. The factum of allowing of the application was communicated to the competent authority of the Department of School Education. Despite correspondences going on between the petitioner and the authorities, though certain steps were taken but the order passed by the Tribunal never reached the concretized and fructified stage in entirety as a consequence of which the petitioner was compelled to approach" the Tribunal in Contempt Petition M.A. No. 79/92. The said application was withdrawn with liberty to refile the same. A fresh application was filed forming the subject-matter of M.A. No. 325/1994. The said application faced dismissal as cause title was defective.

(2.) TIME rolled by and with the efflux of time the retiral dues in stage and phases were paid to the petitioner but ripened fruit was not enjoyed by the petitioner. The same led the petitioner to file an application for contempt. After abolition of the Tribunal it has been transferred to this Court. A show cause has been filed by the answering respondents contending inter alia, that various directions given by the Tribunal for payment of retiral dues of the deceased wife of the petitioner have been made but there was delay due to budget allotment and preparation of requisite bills. It is also asserted that the interest on pension has been calculated and sent to the Treasury Officer. As regards the gratuity it is the stance in the show cause that No Objection Certificate regarding vacation of the Government accommodation of the deceased wife was not given so the gratuity amount could not be paid. Reference has been made to the letter dated 28.12.1998 written by the Accounts Officer in the

(3.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner highlighting the fact that the Tribunal had passed order dated 26.6.1991 and after the expiry of six years and on initiation of number of contempt proceedings wisdom dawned upon the authorities and they started taking action in the year 1997. It is asseverated that the order of the Tribunal was absolutely and categorically unequivocal and imperative and there was no impediment to comply with the same. It is put forth that the stand taken that no, 'No Objection Certificate' tendered about vacation of government accommodation is much sound and fury since the petitioner had clearly replied that a sum of Rs. 660/- was demanded towards balance of rental dues for alleged occupation of the government accommodation and the same was paid by him expecting the huge amount of arrears of gratuity which was pending to be cleared would be cleared without any kind of hurdle or demur.