Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 150320 (ALL)

UNION OF INDIA THRU. THE SECY. DEPTT. OF POSTS, NEW DELHI AND 2 OTHERS v. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LKO. AND ANOTHER

WRIA/7708/2025 · 2025-07-21

Attau Rahman Masoodi, Shree Prakash Singh

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41546-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7708 of 2025 Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru. The Secy. Deptt. Of Posts, New Delhi And 2 Others Respondent :- Presiding Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Pandey Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Union of India. Present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has assailed the Judgment and order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Contempt Petition No.33 of 2017. The contempt petition was disposed of issuing a direction to comply with the judgment rendered in O.A. No.398 of 1997. The proceedings of O.A. No.398 of 1997 arose before the Tribunal against an order of major penalty. The O.A., after exchange of pleadings, was allowed by the Judgment and order dated 19.1.2005. The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the Judgment and order rendered by the Tribunal on 19.1.2005 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.893 of 2005. At the initial stage, an interim order dated 07.07.2005 was passed in the writ petition admitting it and the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal was also stayed till the next date of listing. As a consequence of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent was not reinstated in service to continue as such till dismissal of the writ petition by this Court on 29.3.2017. It appears that after dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent initiated contempt proceedings through Contempt Petition No. 33 of 2017. The contempt proceedings have been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 31.10.2023 allowing the contempt petition in terms of the judgment which was passed by the Tribunal on 19.1.2005. The Tribunal appears to have passed the order looking to the finality of the proceedings between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it was on account of an interim order passed by this Court that the respondent was not reinstated in service pursuant to the Judgment passed by the Tribunal on 19.1.2005 and he remained out of service upto the dismissal of the writ petition on 29.3.2017. It is further argued that the petitioners cannot be faulted for not having reinstated the respondent during the aforesaid period once there was an interim order passed by this Court, as such, the respondent may not be entitled to payment of salary during that period, i.e., from 19.1.2005 to 29.3.2017. The argument put forth before this Court is tactical but on a critical analysis of the same, it is to be noted that it was a calculated risk which the petitioners took by assailing the Judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Although, the petitioners succeeded in obtaining the interim order from this Court with the hope of success but the writ petition on being heard finally has been dismissed by this Court. In the circumstances, the respondent on rejection of the writ petition became entitled to the full benefit of the Judgment passed by the Tribunal on 19.1.2005. Once the Judgment passed by the Tribunal has attained finality, the respondent cannot be deprived of any part of the benefit, as, no fault can be attributed against him for being out of service during the period in question. The submission put forth, thus, cannot be appreciated for taking a view contrary to what has been opined by the Tribunal and the Judgment passed by the Tribunal deserves to be upheld. The writ petition for the reasons recorded hereinabove, lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. We, however, provide that the petitioners may make necessary compliance of the Judgment passed by the Tribunal within a period of three months from today. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh, J.) (A.R. Masoodi, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench