SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Del) 2708

146 (2008) DELHI LAW TIMES 588 (DB)
DELHI HIGH COURT
Mukul Mudgal & Aruna Suresh, JJ.
RAJESH KUMAR – Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS. – Respondents
WP(C) 11344 of 2004
Decided on : 7.12.2007

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep Jain and Mr. Sudhanshu Palo, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG with Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Chetan Chawla and Mr. Abhilash Mathur, Advocates.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with the orders of the CAT and ensuring the binding and final judgment of the High Court is made effective.

Headnote:

CAT - Challenge to Order - Certified Standing Orders, Contempt of Courts Act - [Para 4 (iii) of the Certified Standing Orders, Contempt of Courts Act]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Badli/Daily Paid Worker in Delhi Milk Scheme, completed 240 days but was not transferred to the regular establishment. The CAT ordered the transfer, which was challenged by the respondents in a writ petition before the High Court. The respondents failed to comply with the CAT's order, leading to a contempt petition and subsequent writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench of the CAT dismissed the contempt petition, leading to the present writ petition challenging the CAT's order. The petitioner argued that the CAT misread its own order and failed to appreciate the terms of the order. The respondents contended that the writ petition against the CAT's order was not maintainable.

Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of the Certified Standing Orders regarding completion of 240 days, the maintainability of the writ petition against the CAT's order, and the compliance with the CAT's order.

Ratio Decidendi: The CAT's order was found to be misread and misinterpreted, leading to a lack of compliance by the respondents. The High Court held that the writ petition against the CAT's order was maintainable. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the CAT's order and ensuring the binding and final judgment of the High Court is made effective.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the CAT's order and directed the respondents to transfer the petitioner to the regular establishment and grant all consequential benefits by a specified date.

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.-

The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order dated 1st August, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CAT"), Principal Bench, New Delhi in CP 135/2003 in O.A. No. 1197/ 2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) The petitioner herein was engaged as .Badli/Daily Paid Worker in Delhi Milk Scheme with effect from 1st January, 1999 onwards. The petitioner had completed 240 days in a period of 12 months. The said period of 240 days was calculated by counting the days of actual duty rendered by him plus the intervening weekly offs and other holidays.

(b) Even after completion of 240 days in accordance with the provisions of the Para 4 (iii) of the Certified Standing Orders, the petitioner was not transferred to regular establishment of Delhi Milk Scheme.

(c) Aggrieved by the failure of the respondent to transfer the services of the petitioner to the regular establishment of Mates in spite of completing the requisite number of 240 days including weekly offs and holidays the petitioner along with 15 others approached the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, by filing O.A.1197/2001.

(d) The learned Member, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, by its order dated 20th November 2001 disposed of the O.A. No. 1197/2001 filed by the petitioner with the following findings -

"Having regard to the aforestated legal position based on the provisions made in the Certified Standing Orders and the judgments rendered by this Tribunal, there is no manner of doubt that each one of the applicants has completed the requisite number of days so as to be transferred on to the regular establishment of Mates."

While disposing of the O.A. of the petitioner, the learned Member, CAT, had issued the following directions to the respondents:

"For all the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the present OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to transfer the services of the applicants to the regular establishment of Mates wholly in terms of the Standing Orders and to grant them all the consequential benefits in accordance with the said orders and the applicable instructions. Needless to add that after being regularized, the applicants will also find place in the relevant seniority list prepared according to the rules on the subject."

(e) Aggrieved by the order of the learned Member of the CAT, dated 28th November, 2001, the respondents filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6211/2002 before this Court, which was dismissed by the order of this Court dated 30th September, 2002.

(f) On non-compliance of the order of the learned Member , CAT dated 20th November, 2001, by the respondents, the petitioner along with 15 other applicants filed the Contempt Petition No. 135/2003 before the Division Bench of the CAT. By its order dated 1st January, 2003, the Division Bench of CAT had dismissed the petitioners contempt petition.

(g) Hence this writ petition.

3. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st August, 2003 passed by the CAT, Principal, New Delhi in C.P. No.135/2003 in O.A. 1197/2001 whereby the contempt petition filed by the petitioner and 28 others was dismissed by the CAT holding that para 5 of the Tribunals order dated 20th November, 2001 in O.A. 1197/2001 does not contain a conclusion that "there is no manner of doubt that each one of the applicants has completed the requisite number of days so as to be transferred to the regular establishment of Mate".

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Jain in support of his case submitted as follows:

(a) The Division Bench of the CAT has completely misread the order of the learned Member, CAT, dated 20th November, 2001 in O.A. No. 1197/2001 and the scheme thereof. The Tribunal made its impugned order dated 1st August, 2003 dismissed the petitioners contempt petition wholly misreading the order dated 20th November, 2001 of the learned Member of the CAT and h


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top