Judgement clarification
kumarjainn
(Querist) 14 February 2017
This query is : Open
sir
I have posed this qs earlier also in the year 2011 now I am again coming with new question in this judgement in my case No. 4545/2000, Delhi High Court.
I was not considered for promotion in the year 1998 from the post of Sc.'C' to Sc. 'D' due to wrong implementation of the rules. I filed a case in CAT. Finally in the year 2011 i succeeded in High court and the judgement was delivered as below. However in the meantime I got promoted from Sc. 'C' to Sc'D' in the year 2001 and subsequently I got promotion as Sc. 'E' and Sc. 'F' . there is contradiction in para 8 and para 9 of the judgement. The last two para 8 and 9 of the judgement are given below:
Para 8.Since the petition filed by the petitioner succeed on this ground itself, it is not necessary to deal with the other contention rested on the retrospective operation of the said rule. Accordingly
W.P. (C) 4545/2000 Page 12 of 12
rule is made absolute. The impugned judgment dated 1st May, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby set aside. The O.A. filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is allowed. As a consequence, direction is issued to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner by holding review DPC and if found suitable for promotion, the petitioner be accorded promotion to the post of scientist "D‟ with effect from the date his juniors were promoted on the basis of Internal Screening Committee which was held on 1st July, 1998.
Para 9. We are informed that the petitioner was subsequently given promotion to the post of scientist 'D‟ w.e.f. 1st July, 1998, he shall be given arrears on repromoted post from 1st July, 1998 to 30th July, 2001 and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of seniority and promotion etc.
10. Since the respondents have not appeared, no order as to costs.
(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (M.L. MEHTA) JUDGE JULY 7,2011 skb
Note: there is a typing error in para 9 in place of (w.e.f. 1st July, 1998 it should be 1st July, 2001)
From the above it is clear that Paara 8 and 9 are contradicting. Paara 8 says that to consider my case for promotion in the year 1998 on the basis recommendation of the review DPC.
And para 9 says to as I am promoted in the year 2001 I should be given promotion w.e.f. 1998 with arrears and consequential benefit. That is Review DPC/assessment is not required.
The department implemented Para 8. I was directed to appear before the Review DPC for the year 1998. Then I received a letter intimating me that the review DPC did not find me fit for promotion in the year 1998. I was not given promotion from the year 1998 etc.
The department implemented the para 8 of the judgement no doubt. fine
But department has not implemented the Para 9 of the judgement according to which since i was promoted to the post of Scientist 'D' in the year 2001 I should have been given promotion from the year 1998 with arrears and consequential benefits.
This para does not ask for the views of review DPC. The result of 2001 has to be implemented with effect from 1998.
Thus Para 9 of the judgement has not been implemented. IS it a fit case for filing contempt of court or not. If yes,
can I file contempt for not implementing para 9 of the judgement now after a delay of five years. pl advice.
In fact department should have implemented para 9 of the judgment which is final para of the judgment. In case department department wishes to implement para 8 it should also implement para 9 of the judgment. my contention is Not implementing para 9 of the judgment is contempt of court.
