2021 (1) TMI 856 - HC - Indian Laws

Benefit of grant of regularization and other service benefits - non-fulfilment of conditions as per the Recruitment Rules of MTS that is with regard to the age - HELD THAT - In order to attract the contempt of the courts the order should be very specific and clear in terms as we have noted above the CAT has not directed the regularization of the respondent herein but only directed for consideration of the representation of respondent herein. The said direction has been strictly complied and the application of the respondent has been considered and a considered order has been passed as noted supra. Therefore if at all the respondent is aggrieved by the order passed by the petitioner No.1 herein dated 31.08.2018 as per Annexure-G he ought to have challenged the said order and in that context the Tribunal may get an opportunity to examine whether that particular order is in accordance with law or not then only it would have passed an appropriate order in that regard instead of that contempt proceedings has been initiated which is not in our opinion justified. Hence the order impugned deserves to be quashed. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Contempt proceedings against petitioners for non-compliance with CAT order
- Compliance with CAT order for consideration of representation
- Validity of CAT order initiating contempt proceedings

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a case where the respondent filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking regularization and service benefits. The CAT, after hearing both parties, directed the Ministry to expedite the process and decide within three months. Subsequently, the petitioners passed an order finding the respondent ineligible for regularization due to age requirements. Instead of challenging this order, the respondent initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioners for non-compliance with the CAT order. The CAT entertained the contempt proceedings but observed that the petitioners had considered the respondent's application and passed a detailed order. The High Court noted that the CAT had not directed the respondent's regularization, only consideration of the representation. The High Court found the initiation of contempt proceedings unjustified, as the respondent should have challenged the order directly. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the contempt proceedings, and provided the respondent with the liberty to challenge the order dated 31.08.2018 in the appropriate court if aggrieved.

In the judgment, the main issue revolved around the contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioners for failing to comply with the CAT order. The High Court emphasized that for contempt of court to apply, the order must be specific and clear. Since the CAT order only directed consideration of the respondent's representation, which was duly done by the petitioners, the initiation of contempt proceedings was deemed unjustified. The High Court highlighted that the respondent should have challenged the order directly if aggrieved, allowing the Tribunal to assess its legality. Consequently, the High Court quashed the contempt proceedings, providing the respondent with the opportunity to challenge the order through proper legal channels.

Another crucial aspect addressed in the judgment was the compliance with the CAT order for the consideration of the respondent's representation. The High Court acknowledged that the petitioners had duly considered the respondent's application and passed a detailed order based on legal requirements. Despite the respondent's dissatisfaction with the outcome, the High Court stressed the importance of following the proper legal process by challenging the order directly rather than resorting to contempt proceedings. By upholding the petitioners' compliance with the CAT order, the High Court underscored the necessity of adhering to legal procedures and avenues for redressal in such matters.

The judgment also evaluated the validity of the CAT order that initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioners. The High Court scrutinized the CAT's direction, noting that it did not mandate the respondent's regularization but only the consideration of the representation. Given that the petitioners had fulfilled this requirement and issued a detailed order based on legal grounds, the High Court deemed the initiation of contempt proceedings unwarranted. By emphasizing the need for clarity and specificity in court orders, the High Court underscored the importance of following due process and seeking appropriate legal remedies in case of grievances. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and provided the respondent with the opportunity to challenge the original order through lawful means.