The remedy against the orders passed by the Tribunal in contempt proceedings is to challenge them by way of an Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioners – Union of India has filed this Petition challenging the order dated 26/07/2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in OA No. 350 of 1994 and order dated 27/06/2002 passed in Contempt Petition No. 95 of 2001.

3. By an order dated 26/07/2000, the Tribunal has allowed OA No. 350 of 1994 and thereby passed the operative order at para 6, which reads thus;

“6. “In the result, we allow the application. It is directed that the applicants are deemed to have been promoted to class II Service as Asst. Commercial Superintendent/Asst. Operating Supds. w.e.f. November 1979, when the applicants erstwhile juniors N.C.Sharma and T.N.S. Balasubramaniam were promoted to the said posts on adhoc basis and continued till regularisation in 1983, with all the consequential benefits. Respondents shall consider the requests of the applicants for promotion to Senior Scale from 24.09.1985 and to Group A from 22.08.1990, when their juniors made the grades, depending on their eligibility and suitability worked on the basis of their promotions to Class II in November 1979 and on the basis of their performance relevant to those periods. The applicants would also be entitled to arrears of pay and allowance on account of the antidating of their promotion to November 1979, though we are not granting the request for interest on arrears. However, before parting with the application, we would like to remark that the respondents should have been more responsive and alive to the rightful claims of the applicants, especially after the same have been endorsed by the Tribunal and the Apex Court. We hope they would do it in future. No order on costs.”

Alleging breach of the order dated 26/07/2000, the respondents filed Contempt Petition No. 95 of 2001 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 27/06/2002 was pleased to proceed to frame the charge in accordance with Rule 13(b)(i) of the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992 read with Form No.3. The Tribunal was pleased to direct personal appearance of the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai before the Tribunal on 26/07/2002 when charges were to be framed.

4. This Court, by an interim order dated 28/11/2002 was pleased to stay the further proceedings in Contempt Petition No. 95 of 2001.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 516 contended that against the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in the Contempt Petition, Appeal lies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the present Writ Petition is therefore, not maintainable.

6. Shri Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. Mohajan and others Vs. Shefali Sengupta and others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 761 contended that in the light of the decision in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, the orders passed under the contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings and upset the interim or interlocutory orders of the Tribunals.

7. The only question that arises for consideration is whether against the order passed by the Tribunal in a contempt petition for framing charges against the contemnors directing personal appearance, the Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India should be entertained though the remedy is provided by way of an Appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. In our opinion, the question as regards scope of the High Courts jurisdiction regarding challenge to the orders passed by the Tribunal in contempt proceedings is no more resintegra. The Apex Court in the case