The tribunal emphasized compliance with prior orders regarding pension adjustments, highlighting the petitioners' right to revive contempt proceedings if benefits are not received.

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

1. Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

2. The instant contempt petition vide no. 104 of 2024 was filed by the petitioners alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 06.11.2023 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 245 of 2016.

3. Referring to the contents of the contempt petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject OA was allowed in favour of the applicants and the respondents were directed to extend the benefit of 55% elements in retiral benefits / pension in the running allowance which would enhance pension and other retiral dues, which shall be paid to the applicant from the date of their retirement. To complete the exercise, a time of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order was granted to the respondents. However, even after the expiry of the prescribed time limit, when the order was not complied with, the petitioners approached through the instant contempt petition. Learned counsel further argued that despite the Tribunal’s intervention, respondents have yet not complied with the directions given in the OA as several orders have been passed on the part of the respondents but actual benefit has not been paid.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the petitioners’ counsel and referring to his affidavit of compliance, he argued that the competent authority of the respondents has taken necessary action in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 06.11.2023 and revised the pension of the applicants and issued revised pension payment orders in their favour vide order dated 31.07.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners rebutted the submissions of the respondents’ counsel and referring to the objection filed against the compliance affidavit, he argued that the revised PPOs of the applicants have been issued according to the 6^th CPC whereas it was required to be issued according to the 7^th CPC and difference of pension according to 55% elements was also required to be paid to the applicants which was not done.

6. Rebutting the aforesaid submissions of the petitioners’ counsel, respondents have filed Reply to the Objection filed by the petitioners to the affidavit of compliance and referring to the same, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the letter dated 31.07.2024 was issued by the competent authority of the respondents thereby revising the PPOs of the petitioners and the same was done by refixing the pay of the petitioners after adding 55% pay elements in compliance of the order of the Tribunal. Thus, prayer was made by the respondents’ counsel that the order dated 06.11.2023 has been complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit and therefore the instant contempt petition is liable to be closed and notices be discharged.

7. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records and carefully perused the contempt petition, affidavit of compliance, objection filed against the affidavit of compliance and reply filed to the objection against compliance affidavit. The subject original application was decided by the Tribunal on 06.11.2023 with following directions:

“ 9. Since, the similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit of adding the 55% element in the retiral benefits/pension at the rate of last 10 months + 55% of the pay and this Tribunal in so many cases allowed the OA, which have also been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, I have no occasions to defer the view taken by the other benches