The judgment establishes the principle that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the contempt petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, and that the petitioner should seek remedy under the Act alone.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) constituted under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, by filing Original Application No. 727/CII/1992.

2. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal to the extent it held the petitioner to be ineligible for the grant of senior scale. The petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition before this Court challenging the order dated 6.2.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal to such extent and sought directions to the respondents to fix his pay in the senior scale equal to his junior w.e.f. March, 1983 with all consequential benefits. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court and the observation made in the order dated 6.2.2001 with regard to non-grant of proforma promotion and the selection grade to the petitioner, was quashed. A direction was granted by this Court to the respondents to release proforma promotion, if not already released, to the petitioner together with all consequential benefits and selection grade from the date the same were given to the persons junior to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court alleging therein that the directions given by this Court have not been complied with. In reply, it has been stated that the petitioner has been promoted and has been given revised pension and arrears. However, the petitioner disputes such assertion of the respondents and asserts that in fact, more amount is due and payable and that no amount whosoever has been paid towards arrears of pay.

4. At the outset, one question which arises is whether this Court should exercise its contempt jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the learned Tribunal has the jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has alleged violation of the directions issued by this Court and, therefore, the contempt petition would be maintainable before this Court alone. However, on behalf of the respondents, it was argued that it is the Administrative Tribunal who has the jurisdiction in respect of all disputes in respect of recruitment and conditions of services of the persons appointed to public service and the posts in connection with the affairs of the Union including the Railways. Even though the High Court has exercised power of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, yet the order passed by this Court has the effect of substitution of the order passed by the learned Tribunal and, thus, it is an order passed under the Act alone. In respect of any violation of the order passed under the Act, it is the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, who has the jurisdiction to entertain the contempt petition.

6. In Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997(3) S.C.C. 261, it was held that all decisions of the Tribunals, whether created in pursuance of the Articles 323-A or 323-B of the Constitution of India, will be subject to the High Courts writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction, the particular Tribunal falls. It was held to the following effect :

"xxx xxx xxx

We have already emphasised the necessity for ensuring that the High Courts are able to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of the Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. In R.K. Jains case, after taking note of these facts, it was suggested that the possibility of an appeal from the Tribunal on questions of law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It appears that no follow up action has been taken pursuant to the suggestion. Such a measure wo