In contempt proceedings, technical non-compliance with promotion consideration direction is not contumacious if remedied; disputes on PwD zone of consideration and seniority merits require separate proceedings beyond contempt scope.

ORDER 

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicant is a visually handicapped person. He approached this Tribunal in the present OA, seeking the reliefs to date back his promotion granted as Stores Officer by the respondents to 2014 and also to consider him for promotion to the post of Senior Stores Officer Grade-II, with notional service in the grade of Stores Officer. The OA was allowed. The operative part of the above order is at paragraph 15, which is extracted as follows:

“15. ………….. Applicant shall be considered for his promotion as Senior Stores Officer Grade II based on the disability with effect from the date when his claim originally arose, subject to seniority with respect to the claim of other visually challenged candidates, if any, and such other candidates. He shall be given notional benefits with effect from such date, when he is found to be eligible. Appropriate orders shall be passed with effect from such date notionally within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

2. The said order was challenged by the respondents in OP (CAT) No. 121 of 2023. It was disposed of by judgment dated 23.11.2023. The operative portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the said OP (CAT) is as follows:

“3. The Union Government approached this Court challenging these orders. The learned Central Government Counsel fairly submitted that based on the notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Disability Affairs) dated 29.07.2013, the post of Stores officer has been identified for the PWD Government Servants in the category of low vision in Group B. In that sense, the original order passed by the Tribunal will have to be affirmed.

4. The next question is the subsequent promotion. That is a question to be addressed by the Department while considering the claim of other seniors and referring to the eligibility of the petitioner for the same. We, therefore, of the view that post of Senior Stores officer Grade II shall be considered in accordance with relevant applicable Rules and Regulations.

We make it clear that we are not interfering with the impugned order to consider the respondent for promotion as a Stores officer w.e.f 01.01.2014. All other issues urged in the original petition are left open.”

3. Alleging non-compliance of the order of this Tribunal, as confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court, the applicant has approached this Tribunal in the present contempt proceedings.

4. The respondents appeared and filed an affidavit dated 6.3.2024. It was stated that the applicant was promoted to the post of Stores Officer notionally with effect from 1.1.2015 by Annexure R1 order dated 29.2.2024. The reason for not promoting the applicant as Stores Officer with effect from 1.1.2014 was stated in the affidavit as follows:

“(b) As on 1.1.2014, there is no other visually challenged candidate senior to the applicant Shri Dinesan EP (at Sen No. 144) in the seniority roll of Senior Store Assistant, but for two PwBDs viz., Shri PK Visveswara Rao (PH-OH) at Sen No. 60 and Shri D Anjaneyulu (PH-

OH) at Sen No. 71, who are senior to the applicant.

(c) There were only 17 vacancies for the DPC year 2014 and Shri Dinesan EP stands at Sen No. 144 as on 1.1.2014. The normal zone of consideration for 17 vacancies is 29 and as per DOP&T OM No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res-II) dated 17 May 2022 the extended zone of consideration is 85 for PwBDs.

Since the applicant’s seniority is