Deo Nandan Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 February, 2009

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(S) No. 4227 of 2008
                                    ----
           Deo Nandan Prasad                       ...     Petitioner
                                  -Versus-
           Union of India & ors                          Respondents
                                    ----
           CORAM :        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y.EQBAL
                          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
                                    ----
           For the Petitioner          :    M/s. Rajiv Ranjan & A.K.Mishra
           For the Respondents         :    M/s. Md. M.Khan & S.Srivastava
                                    ----

8-/ 13.2.2009    The instant application has been filed by the petitioner

           challenging     the   order   dated   26.6.2008   passed   by   Central

           Administrative Tribunal Patna, Ranchi Bench in CCPA No.9/2008,

           whereby the Tribunal refused to issue show cause notice to the

           respondents for non-compliance of judgment and order passed by

           the Tribunal.

           2.    It appears that the petitioner filed a contempt petition for

           initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondents for

           alleged disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal dated

           21.9.2007

in OA No.132/2005.

3. The pensioners of the erstwhile Principal Accountant

General, Bihar and Jharkhand are getting medical facilities by way

of Clinical consultation and as indoor patients in case of

hospitalization of referred cases for treatment in recognized

hospitals as extended to the Central Pensioners including retired

IAS, IFS, IPS officers of the State cadre. The said medical benefits,

which were extended to the retired Divisional Accountants being

the retired Central Government Employees, were withdrawn in

pursuance of CICM dated 25.4.2002. The matter was finally

decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal holding that the

facilities is to be extended, which will reflect from the judgment.

The Tribunal, however, refused to issue notice on the ground that
2

there was no clear direction in the final order passed by the

Tribunal.

4. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act,1971 defines “civil

contempt” which means willful disobedience to any judgment,

decree, direction, order, writ or other process of court or willful

breach of an undertaking given to a court. It is, therefore, clear

that even if there is willful and deliberate flouting of the order of

the Tribunal, ex-facie a case of contempt is made out and the

Tribunal may exercise its power under Section 17 of the

Administrative Tribunal Act in appropriate cases. In our view,

therefore, at least the Tribunal ought to have issued notice to the

respondents to show cause as to whether they have deliberately

flouting the order of the Tribunal. Even if there is no specific

direction in the judgment and order, contempt proceeding can be

initiated.

5. In the aforesaid premises, this application is allowed and the

matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the application

in accordance with law.

(M.Y. Eqbal, J. )

Jaya Roy,J. :

(Jaya Roy,J. )

Pandey