Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anil Kumar and Veena Birbal, JJ.
Appellants: The Director Lalaram Sarup Institute for Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Prabhu Lal Jat
W.P. (C) No. 5691/2010 and CM No. 11187/2010
Decided On: 19.01.2011
Contempt Petition - Pay Scale Dispute - Fifth Pay Commission, Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 5500-9000, 4500-7000, 5000-8000 - CAT Judgment dated 06.11.2007, Order dated 23.11.2009, Order dated 22.01.2010 - The court discussed the compliance of directions given by the Tribunal, the reasons for granting pay scales retrospectively or prospectively, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in entertaining the contempt petition and issuing further directions.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent challenged the withdrawal of the pay scale of ` 5500-9000 granted to him earlier, leading to multiple orders and directions from the Tribunal and the Petitioner regarding the grant of pay scale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the directions given by the Tribunal had been fully complied with by the Petitioners, and the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the contempt petition and issuing further directions.
Issues: Compliance with Tribunal directions, jurisdiction of the Tribunal in entertaining the contempt petition and issuing further directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order exceeded the Tribunal's jurisdiction and set it aside, allowing the Respondent to file a fresh petition challenging the order dated 22.01.2010.
Final Decision: The present petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 20.04.2010 was set aside. The Respondent was entitled to file a fresh petition before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 22.01.2010.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the grant of a pay scale to the Respondent, a Physiotherapist employed by the Petitioner's institute, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (!) .
The Respondent initially received a higher pay scale of 5500-9000, which was later withdrawn due to audit objections, resulting in subsequent orders and disputes over the appropriate pay scale (!) (!) .
The Tribunal issued directions for the Petitioners to reconsider the Respondent's claim for the higher pay scale, leading to multiple orders and compliance attempts by the Petitioners, including a detailed speaking order dated 22.01.2010 that provided reasons for rejecting the retrospective grant of the higher pay scale (!) (!) .
The Petitioners' order of 22.01.2010 was a reasoned and comprehensive decision, aligning with the educational qualifications and comparison with similar posts in other institutes, and was in compliance with the Tribunal's directions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Respondent filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with Tribunal directions, which the Tribunal initially found to be unsubstantiated, as the Petitioners had fully complied with the directions through the detailed order (!) (!) .
The Tribunal's subsequent order, which directed the Petitioners to pass a fresh order within two weeks, was considered to be an overreach of its jurisdiction, as the Petitioners had already fully complied with the original directions through a speaking order (!) (!) .
The Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the further directions, as the Petitioners' order was a complete, reasoned, and compliant response to the Tribunal's earlier order (!) .
Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's impugned order dated 20.04.2010 and clarified that the Respondent could challenge the order of 22.01.2010 through a proper legal process, not through a contempt petition (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that parties should bear their own costs and that any grievances regarding the order of 22.01.2010 should be addressed by filing an appropriate legal challenge in accordance with law (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of respecting compliance with Tribunal orders and recognizes the Tribunal's limits in directing further proceedings beyond what is necessary for enforcement (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
Veena Birbal, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Petitioner challenging impugned order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal?) passed in Contempt Petition No. 130/2010 in OA No. 1793/2009 filed by the Respondent.
2. The Petitioner Institute is an autonomous body functioning under the direct control of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Respondent had joined the Petitioners? organization as a "Physiotherapist? on 01.08.1994. On the basis of recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission, the Respondent had made a representation to Petitioner for the grant of revised pay scale of ` 5500-9000 which was granted to him vide order dated 29.12.1998. On 19.07.2004, on the basis of audit objections raised by the CAG, the said pay scale was withdrawn and the Respondent was placed in the pay scale of ` 4500-7000. Thereafter, Petitioner was granted the benefit of ACP Scheme vide order dated 27.10.2006 and was placed in the higher pay scale of ` 5000-8000 w.e.f. 24.08.2006 on completion of 12 years of service.
3. Respondent had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the withdrawal of pay scale of ` 5500-9000 which was granted to him earlier. The said petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was numbered as TA No. 30/2007. The said TA was disposed of vide order dated 06.11.2007 wherein directions were given to Petitioner to take a final decision with regard to grant of pay scale of ` 5500-9000 to the Respondent No. 1 within a period of three months.
Thereafter, the Petitioner vide orders dated 01.04.2008 and 03.04.2008 disposed of the issue raised by the Respondent and a decision was taken to grant the said pay scale to the Respondent prospectively and the said order was passed in consultation with the Ministry of Health of Family Welfare and the approval was also accorded by the Ministry of Finance. The aforesaid orders were challenged by the Respondent by filing OA No. 864/2008. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2008 and the matter was remanded back to the Petitioner to reconsider the claim of the Respondent for grant of pay scale of ` 5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. In compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, the Petitioners? organization passed an order dated 25.05.2009 rejecting the claim of Respondent on the ground that the Respondent cannot claim parity with the post of Physiotherapist in PGIMER Chandigarh and AIIMS by giving a detailed reasoning. Even the said order was challenged before the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1793/2009 with a prayer for grant of pay scale of ` 5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the Petitioners giving reasons as to why the said pay scale cannot be granted to the Respondent w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2009 disposed of OA No. 1793/2009 directing the Petitioner to reconsider the grant of pay scale to the Respondent w.e.f. 01.01.1996 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
4. In compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, the Petitioner organization passed a detailed order dated 22.01.2010 rejecting the claim of the Respondent by passing a speaking order discussing as to why the Respondent cannot be given the pay scale of ` 5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
5. Aggrieved with the same, the Respondent filed a contempt petition being C.P. No. 130/2010 which has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 20.04.2010 by which Tribunal has observed that the directions given to the Petitioners have not been complied with as such another opportunity is given to the Petitioners for complying with directions in true letter and spirit by passing a fresh order within two weeks from the date of passing of the order.
6. Aggrieved with the same, the present petition is filed.
7. Counsel for Petitioner has contended that the Respondent has been appro
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
