National Association of Postal Employees Group-C

CAT Judgement Dated 15-05-2014 Reg Contempt Petition for Modified Parity to Pre-2006 Pensioners

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
C.P. No.158/2012
O.A. No. 655/2010
M.A. No. 1228/2014

New Delhi, this the 15th day of May, 2014

HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SYED RAFAT ALAM, CHAIRMAN
HON BLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)
HON BLE DR. BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER (A)

1.Central Government SAG (S-29)
Pensioners Association
Through its Secretary Shri Sant Bhushan Lal,
C-5/21, Grand Vasant,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110 070.

2.Shri Satish Varma,
Retd. Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission,
Ministry of Water Resources,
Govt. of India,
Resident of B-6/8, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-110 057. .. Petitioners
(By Advocate : Shri Nidesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sushil
Malik, Shri M.K. Ghosh and Shri Tarun Gupta)
Versus

1. Mr. R.C. Misra,
Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi-110 003.
2. Mr. Sumit Bose,
Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi. .. Proposed Contemnors/
Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Rajesh Katyal and with Shri D.S. Mahendru
with departmental representatives Ms. Tripti Ghosh,
Director and Shri Harjit Singh, Dy. Secretary)

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam
C.P. No.158/2012
This is an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for not carrying out the judgment/order of the Tribunal dated 01.11.2011 in O.A. No.655/2010 and connected cases.

2. At the outset, Shri Rajesh Katyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions from Ms. Tripti Ghosh, Director and Shri Harjit Singh, Dy. Secretary, submits that the Curative Petition preferred by them has already been rejected by the Hon ble Apex Court by order dated 30.04.2014, and that the Ministry of Law has advised the Department to implement the aforesaid order of the Tribunal qua the petitioners. He submits that some reasonable time may be given to them to implement the aforesaid order.

3. In view of the above, we are of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending and it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter with direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months.

4. With the above order, this Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notices issued to the alleged respondents/contemnors are discharged.
M.A. No. 1228/2014

In view of the fact that Curative Petition has been rejected by the Hon ble Apex Court and also in view of the submission made by Shri Rajesh Katyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions made by the departmental representatives, that they have been advised by the Ministry of Law to implement the order of this Tribunal, in our view the Miscellaneous Application No.1228/2014 has become infructuous, and the same is, therefore, rejected.

(Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha)       (V. Ajay Kumar)             (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A)                Member(J)                         Chairman

source-http://www.rscws.com/pdfdocs/CAT_Judgement_Dated_15-05-2014_for_Modified_Parity.pdf