CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
CP No.515 of 2013
IN
OA No.1282 of 2010
New Delhi, this the
13th day of March, 2014
HON BLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HON BLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A)
1. BSNL
Officers Association (Regd)
Through
its President Rudra Pal Sharma,
O/o
T-15, Atul Grove Road,
New Delhi.
2. N. Kabir
Das
S/o Late N. Narayana,
O/o SDES&M Udan
CMR Charminar,
Hyderabad -500 002. Petitioners
(By Advocate: Mrs. Rani Chhabra)
Versus
1. Shri R.K.
Upadhyaya
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BSNL
Corporate Office: 3rd Floor,
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi.
2. Shri A.K.
Singh
Assistant General Manager (Personnel)
Pers-IV, BSNL, 5th Floor,
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi. .Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. Sameer Aggarwal)
ORDER (ORAL)
SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) :
This
Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of
the Order of this Tribunal dated 26.8.2010 passed in OA No.1282/2010. The
operative part of the said Order reads as under:-
3. We have gone through the judgment passed by Ernakulam Bench
of this Tribunal and are in respectful agreement with the same. We are, however, informed that against the
judgment aforesaid, respondents have filed two writs in the Hon’ble High Court
of Kerala and the same have been admitted, but in none of these two writs, stay
has been granted. If perhaps, the
respondents would have obtained the stay, we may have adjourned this case sine
die. But, inasmuch as, once there is no
stay and, therefore, the applicants in TAs are getting the relief granted to
them, there will be no need whatsoever to stay the proceedings of this case.
4. For parity of reasons, we allow present Original
Application in terms of the decision of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in the
matter of M.V. Salilakumar & Ors. V/s. The Chairman & Managing Director
& Ors.(supra). However, we make it absolutely clear that the fate of the
applicants herein would be dependent upon the writs filed by the respondents in
Kerala High Court. That being so, if the
writs are allowed, the respondents may withdraw the benefits given to the
applicants and, therefore, there will be no need for the respondents to file
separate writ in this case.
2. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration,
learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the aforesaid Order of this
Tribunal has been complied with except for payment of arrears. The
petitioners counsel has also acknowledged to that extent.
3. In view of the above position, this Contempt Petition is
closed. Notices issued to the alleged contemnors are discharged. However, it is
hoped that the respondents would pay the arrears arising out of the aforesaid
order to the applicants within a reasonable time preferably within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL)
(G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ravi/
