Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10370-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18661 of 2024 Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Sharma and 3 others Respondent :- Sri Chandra Veer Raman and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amardeo Singh Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the contempt application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. In the Original Application (O.A.) filed by one Shyam Bahadur and ten others, in which the petitioners herein were respondent nos. 17 to 20. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 24.05.2023, allowed the O.A. and the order impugned in the said O.A. dated 25.07.2022 by which a Panel of 40 members was short listed for promotion was set aside and the case was remanded back to the competent authority to re-examine the whole process of selection and do promotions strictly in terms of notification dated 07.12.2021. 3. Further directions were issued in relation to reservation in promotion to be strictly in compliance with circular and OMs of DOPT and judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. It appears that pursuant to the said order dated 24.05.2023, a modified panel was issued on 03.07.2023. A Contempt Petition No. 86 of 2023 was filed by few of the applicants in O.A. No. 730 of 2022, which contempt petition came to be dismissed on 21.08.2023. 5. The petitioners herein also filed Contempt Petition No. 93 of 2023 inter alia alleging deliberate disobedience of the judgement passed by the Tribunal. It is claimed that the directions pertaining to reservation on promotion were not followed and despite there being 43 vacancies, only 34 promotions have taken place. 6. On notice being issued, the allegations made in the contempt petition were contested wherein it was submitted that already a contempt petition filed by the original applicants in O.A. No. 730 of 2022 has been dismissed by holding that no prima facie case was made out. 7. It was also submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved of the compliance made, they can question its validity and it was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the earlier Contempt Petition No. 86 of 2023 was closed on the ground that the directions issued in O.A. No. 730 of 2022 have been complied with and in the present case no case was made out to re-open the case to retract its own order so as to pass a different order and that in case the petitioners are aggrieved or dissatisfied, they can approach the appropriate forum and consequently dismissed the contempt petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement submissions that when directions of the Tribunal while deciding the O.A. No. 730 of 2022 were specific and clear pertaining to reservation and while issuing the panel, the said directions have not been followed, it was a clear case of deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the Tribunal and, therefore, the dismissal of the contempt petition was not justified. 10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 11. Admittedly, the petitioners were respondents in O.A. No. 730 of 2022, which O.A. came to be allowed and the Panel dated 25.07.2022 issued in their favour, came to be set aside and the matter was remanded back and directions were given for fresh issuance of the panel. The directions given were carried out and the modified panel was issued on 03.07.2023. 12. It appears that the original petitioners being dissatisfied with the issuance of the panel, filed contempt petition, which contempt petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on 21.08.2023 with the following operative portion: "6. A simple perusal of this document also shed light that the authorities have applied their mind afresh on the subject which was before the Tribunal in the OA No. 730/2022 pursuant to the order dated 24.05.2023. Hence, no primafacie case is made out by the applicant that the respondents are not inclined to reapply their mind to the subject matter dealt with the said OA. As primafacie case has not been made out for a contempt notice, hence, no such notice can be issued in this case and only the avenue open to the present applicants is to challenge the said order in a fresh OA, so that notices can be issued and the parties can be heard afresh and matter can be examined, if there is any case for the applicants. 7. Considering this we pass the following order:- "Contempt petition is dismissed. All the pending MA's, if any, shall stand disposed of." 13. The petitioners herein also filed contempt petition and when the same came up before the Tribunal, after notice was issued to the respondents and response was filed, by the order impugned passed by the Tribunal, which comprised one of the members of the Bench which has passed the order in O.A. No. 730 of 2022, came to the conclusion as noticed herein before and dismissed the contempt petition. 14. The observations made by the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A. essentially on account of the fact that already a contempt petition filed alleging disobedience had already been dismissed by it, cannot be faulted. The contempt petitions are in nature of quasi criminal proceedings and in case after dismissal of contempt petition alleging disobedience of order, another contempt petition may be at the instance of someone else, alleging disobedience of the very same order is entertained, the same would be vexing the respondents twice, which is impermissible in law. 15. The nature of allegations made, essentially pertains to the implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal and even if, qua the manner of implementation, in contradistinction to non implementation, a different view is possible, the same would not amount to deliberate disobedience of the directions given by the Tribunal. 16. In the overall facts situation of the case wherein previously already a contempt petition had been dismissed and the allegations essentially pertained to the manner of implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to take a view different from what has been taken by the Tribunal while dismissing the contempt petition. No case is made out in the petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Sandeep (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad