9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Non-implementation of court orders regarding reinstatement and accommodation of petitioner No. 9. 2. Allegations of ill-treatment and change in behavior towards petitioners post-filing of writ petition. 3. Jurisdiction and control over the Pension Paying Office in Nepal. 4. Compliance and apologies by different respondents. 5. Delay in implementation of court orders and reasons provided. 6. Allegations of resentment and motive for delay. 7. Concerns regarding growing instances of non-compliance with court directions. 8. Acceptance of apologies and imposition of costs on respondent No. 6. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed by 40 employees seeking permanent status and benefits, specifically focusing on the reinstatement and accommodation of petitioner No. 9. Despite court orders for reinstatement, there were allegations of non-implementation, leading to contempt proceedings. 2. Post the filing of the writ petition, the behavior towards the petitioners reportedly changed, with allegations of ill-treatment by certain respondents. Separate affidavits were filed by the respondents in response to these allegations. 3. The establishment in question, the Pension Paying Office in Nepal, is under the control of the Indian Embassy, with the Officer-in-Charge overseeing operations. The jurisdictional hierarchy involves the Embassy, Defence Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, and other officials based in Delhi. 4. Different respondents, including the Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary, apologized for the delay in compliance, citing lack of personal impleadment initially. The Military and Air Attache also offered apologies and ensured compliance with court orders. 5. The Officer-in-Charge of the Pension Paying Office explained the delay in implementation, citing communication delays, administrative bottlenecks, and security concerns. The court acknowledged the reasons provided but highlighted the need for timely compliance. 6. Allegations of resentment and motive for delay were raised, hinting at a possible underlying cause for non-compliance. However, the court refrained from delving further into the matter due to subsequent compliance and apologies from all respondents. 7. The judgment expressed serious concern over the trend of non-compliance with court orders and emphasized the importance of upholding the Rule of Law. The court stressed the need for all parties to respect court decisions and avoid unnecessary confrontations. 8. Ultimately, the court accepted the apologies from the respondents, discharged the contempt notice, and directed respondent No. 6 to pay costs of the proceedings within a specified timeline as a form of penalty for the delay in compliance.
|
