Wrong implementation of judgement
kumarjainn
(Querist) 27 July 2013
This query is : Resolved
sir
last Para 8 and 9 of the judgement is given below:
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.
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
The department should have implemented para 9 of the judgment. instead they implemented para 8 of the judgement and after review interview they declared me not yet fit for promotion and closed the file.
thus they have wrongly implemented the judgement.
The judgemnt was pronounced on 7.7.2011.
can i file contempt for wrong implementation of the judgemnt now. will it be time barred.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 27 July 2013
Yes, file a contempt petition in the same court.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 27 July 2013
please clarity whether you agree with my contention that para 9 should have been implemented and para 8 should not have been implemented.
2. the judgement was delivered on 7.7.11. will it not be time bar for filing contempt application
3, the case is that i was not considered for promotion in the year 1998 from Scientist 'C' to Scientist 'D due to implemtation of wrong rules . subsequently, i was promoted in the year 2001. para 9 of the judgement says that my promotion should be made effective from 1998 with consequential benefits. para 8 of the judgment says that i should be reconsidered for review interview. so my contention is para graph 9 of the judgment should have been implemented. please give you opinion.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 27 July 2013
I am unable to agree or disagree with mr Barman.
Querist has not stated any fact of the case except last [paras of the judgement and he does not even disclose which court has ordered this.
Only from the wording it appears a CAT order.
He shou7ld not leave the facts to imagination and must come with facts of the case only then implication of judgement can be commented upon.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 28 July 2013
thanks
the judgement was passed by Delhi High court on 7.7.11 by Hon'ble judge A.K.Sikri in Writ petition (Civil) 4545/2000.
the case is that i was not considered for promotion by the assessment board, 1998 from Scientist 'C' to Scientist 'D' in the year 1998 due to violation of rules. The statutory rule is that a scientist is considered for assessement if he has obtained average 60% marks in last five years ACR's. This eligibility criteria was changed by executive letter and the criteria was changed to 80% marks. changing the statutory eligibility criteria by executive letter is illegal and therefore the court decided the case as given above. during the pendency of the case i was promoted in the year 2001 from scientist 'C' to Scientist 'D' by the assessment board, 2001 after appearing for the interview.i was further promoted to the post of Scietist 'E' in the year 2007
according to para 9 of the judgment the department should have given me the promotion of scientist 'D' w.e.f. 1.7.1998 the arrear from 1998 to 2001 with consequential benefits without asking me to appear before the review assessment board, 1998 as given in para 8 of the judgment. pl. advice as per details given above
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 28 July 2013
under what statutory rule it ws mandatory for you to be called to appear before board.
better meet a knowledgeable person with papers.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 28 July 2013
i have explained the statutory rules above.
accordoing to statutory rule i should have been directed to appear before the assessment board, 1998 if i had obtained 60% average marks in last five years ACR(Annual confidential report). This rule was changed by executive letter and the eligibility criteria was increased from 60% to 80% average marks i was not called to appear before the assessment board 1998 as i had obtained only 77% marks in last five years ACR. The court directed the office in its judgement as given in para 8 and 9 of the judgement given above. the office should have implemented para 9 of the judgement and instead they implemented para 8 of the judgement and after review interview they declared me not fit for promotion. is it not illegal to implement para 8 and not implementing para 9.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 28 July 2013
perhaps Mr.Dingra will be able to guide
kumarjainn
(Querist) 28 July 2013
he may be referred. he has adviced earlier also and know the case.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 28 July 2013
Post a PM to Mr. Dhingra if you has sole faith upon him.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 29 July 2013
sir
will department not be biased and decide to protect its own interest
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 29 July 2013
Though i do not deal service matters yet i wish to say that you are labouring in some misconception about para 9 of the judgement which runs:
"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."
NOTICEABLY THE CASE WAS HEARD EX PARTE AND YOU ARE STILL NOT PROMOTED then who informed the court you were promoted?
To me there is nothing required to be done by department with reference to para 9 of judgement based on wrong information served to court by the petitioner rather any contest over the same may take you in soup,which Mr.Sudhir Kumar is saying indirectly to you in his own style :
"your deptt is full of experts in service matters."
kumarjainn
(Querist) 29 July 2013
Sir,
thanks a lot.
There is a typing error in the para 9 of the judgment. during the pendency of the case I got promoted in the year 2001.As i was not considered for promotion in the year 1998, I had filed this case. So since the court accepted my point that i should have been considered for promotion in the year 1998 therefore my promotion of the year 2001 should have been implemented from 1998 and therefore the court ordered for giving me arrear from 1998 to 2001 with consequential benefit. I had told the court that I was promoted in the year 2001. due to typing error it is printed that i was promoted in the year 1998. Thus court had directed to grant me promotion from 1998 without appearing for Review interview as mentioned in para 8. Thus court has revised the requirement of appearing in the review assessment board.
But instead department asked me to appear in the review assessment board, 1998 and then declared me not fit for promotion for the year 1998. my contention is this action of the department was wrong to have asked me to appear before the review assessment board, 1998. please clarify
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 29 July 2013
Then first get the error corrected and then apply in the department to implement the same and in case they deny file CONTEMPT in court.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 29 July 2013
sir
the judgement came on 7.7.2011. if i file for correction now will it not be time bar and dismissed by the court
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 30 July 2013
Limitation does not come in way to correct a typographical error in any judgement, however,in draft application you may need to
plead you came to know recently and complete the story apply in the department for your dues as per factual dates and let a noting done by the concerned clerk about the error of dates and thereafter attributing the same to be your knowledge source,move the correction application.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 31 July 2013
sir
many many thanks.
even i am of the view that with correction suggested by you the department should have implemented para 9 and should not have implemented para 8. If i write to the department suggesting the above the department will not do this. in that case i will have to file contempt. should i go for all this now. will it be right step.will i get relief from the court if i file contempt. i should move if we are doubly sure.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 31 July 2013
sir
department knew that I was promoted in the year 1998. then why did department do this deliberately. instead of implemting para 9 of the judgement they implemented para 8 and asked me to appear before the review assessment board, 1998 and without taking interview declared me not fit for promotion.
pl. advice
