High Court's jurisdiction over contempt proceedings from Administrative Tribunals is limited; appeals against contempt decisions must go to the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayers in the aforecaptioned O.P.(CAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :

“i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P10 and set aside the same ; and

(ii) declare that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the case of the respondent for conferment of benefits of ACP has been considered in terms of the relevant scheme, there is no contempt of court attracted against the petitioners herein by the Tribunal.”

2. Heard Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners in the Original Petition/ respondents in the Contempt Petition before the Tribunal and Sri.M.A.Shafik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the Original Petition/petitioner in the Contempt Petition before the Tribunal.

3. The case broadly set up by the petitioners in the above Original Petition is as follows :-

The respondent herein was originally engaged as a clerk on daily wages. Later she was offered regularisation with effect from 17.4.1997. Meanwhile the Department of Personnel and Training introduced Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme to avoid stagnation in promotion avenues which provided for conferment of higher grade on completion of 12 year service in one grade and scale of pay without any promotion and further similar upgradation after lapse of 24 years. The upgradation was to be made after assessment of the performance of the employee for continuous five years immediately prior to upgradation subject to satisfaction of the minimum of grade of good for all the five years. Originally the respondent herein filed O.A.No.957 of 2018 essentially seeking that she may be extended the benefit of ACP with effect from 17.4.2002 after reckoning her entire service including casual service from 17.4.1990. Consequently she further sought extension of further higher grade under MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) Scheme with effect from April 2010 on completion of 20 years. There were similar claims related to extension of ACP to other employees who are regularised and completed 12 years service including casual service. O.A.No.957 of 2018 was allowed the CAT vide Ext.P3 order directing extension of ACP and MACP benefits to the respondent after reckoning the casual service rendered by her during 1990-1997. Contempt Petition No.38 of 2019 was filed before the CAT alleging non compliance of Ext.P3 order. The order dated 25.1.2019 was challenged by the Ministry under O.P.(CAT) No.241 of 2019 which happened to be partly allowed under Ext.P4 common judgment dated 19.11.2019 and the Contempt Petition (c) No.38 of 2019 was kept pending by the Tribunal. Under Ext.P4, this Court essentially found that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of ACP Scheme after reckoning the casual service ; but she would not be entitled to reckoning of casual service for MACP benefit as the same required completion of ten years/twenty years regular service in a post without any promotional avenues. In respect of other claimants, related to extension of ACP benefits, this Court in connected cases found that they would be also entitled to reckoning of casual service for conferment of ACP benefits. The case of the respondents and others considered for extension of ACP benefits after assessment of five years service performance as borne out by Annual Confidential Report. Since the respondent entered regular service only on 22.4.1997 and she did not offer her self assessment report during 1997-98, the Ministry made an assessment of service performance of the respondent borne out by ACR of 1998-99 to 2002-2003. On such assessment as the performance related to 2002-03 was found to be 'average' against th