CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD, this the 25th day of April, 2024 Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member Hon’ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member A. Somaiah, S/o. Late Narayana, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Postal Assistant, Khairatabad Head Post Office, Hyderabad, R/o. Flat No.503, A-Block, SNR, Sri Sri Kalakuteer's Apartment, Chintal Kunta, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad-500074.

... Petitioner.

(By Advocate: Dr. A Raghu Kumar)

Vs.

1. Union of India rep by its Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1.

2. P. Vidyasagar Reddy, Chief Postmaster General, Telangana Circle, Hyderabad-1.

3. K. A. Devaraj, Director of Postal Services, O/o. Postmaster General, Hyderabad Headquarters Region, Dak Sadan, Abids, Hyderabad-1.

4. T.A.V. Sarma, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad City Division, Hyderabad-1.

5. B. Krishna, Senior Postmaster, Khairatabad Head Post Office, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

... Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG)

----

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

Mr. B Pavan Kumar, learned advocate, representing the petitioner’s counsel and Mrs. K Rajitha, learned counsel, appeared for the respondents.

2. By this Contempt Petition the petitioner is seeking implementation of order dated 30.01.2023 passed in OA/366/2020, read as under:

“23. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider paying at least 50% of pay and allowances to the applicant, which he would have drawn had he not been compulsorily retired till the date of his reinstatement and count the period intervening between the compulsory retirement and the date of reinstatement for all purposes, with all consequential benefits. The respondents are further directed that, pension and pensionary benefits that had been paid to the applicant may be adjusted from the pay and allowances payable to him as directed above.”

3. After notice, the department has filed compliance as well as additional compliance report.

4. It is to be noted that against the dismissal, the applicant, when approached this Tribunal by filing OA/1138/2012 in the year 2012, by order dated 06.09.2018, this Tribunal has set aside the order of compulsory retirement dated 25.05.2005 and directed the department to reinstate the applicant.

5. The moment the applicant came to be reinstated in the implementation of the order of this Tribunal passed in the year 2020, the department put a condition on the applicant that whatever benefits have been released against the compulsory retirement, the applicant has to return the same on his reinstatement. Therefore, the said order has been again challenged in the present OA.

6. The respondents filed compliance as well as an additional compliance report and contended that the order of this Tribunal has been considered since the applicant is not eligible and entitled to any back wages as directed by this Tribunal while setting aside the compulsory retirement order and directed the department to reinstate the applicant by following the Supreme Court judgement i.e., judgement in Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors. 7. In view of the same, the order of this Tribunal has been fully complied with. This Court has not given any specific direction to grant the benefit of back wages, either 50% or other consequential benefits. The court only directed the respondents for consideration.

8. It is to be noted that in our view, while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement passed in the year 2005, the Court was enough cautious with the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). Hence, the Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for other consequential benefits in accordance with law and the Supreme Court order.

9. In view of the same, the order of this Tribunal is fully complied with. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication. Accordingly, CP/71/2023 in OA/366/20