M.C.MITTAL Vs. KALPANA SHRIVASTAVA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner has sought to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 11.07.2016 and to waive cost imposed while dismissing the Review Petition No.1449/2017 on 09.01.2018.

(2.) The petitioner has pointed out that the order dated 09.01.2018 has two factual errors as it proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner did not challenge the order of compulsory retirement passed on 23.02.2006. It is pointed out that in fact such order was challenged in Writ Petition No.8693/2006 which was dismissed on 16.08.2012. It is also pointed out that in the order passed on 9.1.2018, it is recorded that the contempt petition No.1022/2017 has been filed after 11 years of the order passed in appeal but it is delay of 5 years or so, after the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement. Thus the order passed in review dismissing the contempt petition is based upon factual errors.

(3.) In Contempt Petition No.1022/2017 decided on 03.10.2017, there is no averment that the order of compulsory retirement was challenged in the writ petition which remained unsuccessful. In review petition No.1449/2017 decided on 09.01.2018, the petitioner has not made any averment that the order of compulsory retirement was challenged in the writ petition, which was dismissed. Since, there was no factual assertion either in the contempt petition or in the review petition, such fact could not be noticed in the order dated 09.01.2018. But omission to mention the order dated 16.08.2012 passed in the writ petition does not change the nature of the order as the fact remains that the order of compulsory retirement has attained finality with the dismissal of the writ petition on 16.08.2012. No further proceedings appear to have been taken against the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 16.08.2012. Similarly delay may be five years but is sufficient not to entertain the contempt petition, when the order passed is to decide departmental appeal, which stands decided on 16.08.2012.