IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 35617 of 2005(S) ---------------------------------------- OA.47/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 3. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. P.V.SANTHA, W/O.LATE P.V.MADHUSOODANAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE, NADUVANNUR P.O. KOZHIKODE 673 614. 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN - R1 SRI.P.A.HARISH - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.35617/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 30.11.05 IOF CAT, IN COTNEMPT PETITION NO.95/04 IN IA. NO.47/2004. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 12.4.2004 OF CAT IN OA. 47/2004. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 7.4.2003 OF IST RESPONDENT TO IST PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DO.NO.OSD/MOS/D&PA/RO/2670/2003 DT. 23.4.2003 OF OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY , MINISTRY OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION AND SUPPLIES, TO MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E (REP)III/2003/SR-18/127(B) DT. 18..2003 OF RAILWAY BOARD TO THE IST PETITIONER. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J/P.CON/CGA/4 /2003 DT. 5.8.03 FROM 3RD PETITIONER TO IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE REPORT/LETTER NO.J/P.CON/CGA/4/2003 DT. 5.8.03 OF 3RD PETITIONER TO C.P.O. / MADRAS. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G.50/PG/GP/2003/67 DT. 26.8.2003 FROM OFFICE OF IST PETITIONER TO IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(NG)II/88/RC-1/1/POLICY DT. 2.11.1989 OF RAILWAY BOARD. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PB/CS/30/POLICY /VOL-VI DT. 3.8.95 ISSUED BY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY , HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, MADRAS. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.OPB/CS/30/POLICY/VOL. VII DT. 8.3.2000 ISSUED BY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER/LETTER NO.PB/CS/30/POLICY/VOL. VIII DT. 13.10.2000 OF CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PB/CS/30/PGT/2003/10 DT. 12.5.2004 OF IST PETITIONER TO IST PETITIONER. EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J/P-268/CON/PB/CGA/SUITABILITY/2004 DT. 1.6.2004 OF 3RD PETITIONER TO IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J/P-268/CON/PB/CGA/SUITABILITY/2004 OF 3RD PETITIONER TO IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P16:- COPY OF THE CONTEMPT CASE CP(C) NO.95/04 DT. 22.10.04, FILED BY IST RESPONDENT IN CAT. W.P.(C) NO.35617/2005 EXT.P17:- COPY OF THE COUNSEL STATEMENT DT. 21.12.2004 FILED IN CP(C) NO.95/04 OF CAT, BY RAILWAYS COUNSEL. EXT.P18:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(NG)II/98/RC-1/58(POLICY) DT. 28.7.1998 OF RAILWAY BOARD. EXT.P19:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E/(NG)II/99/RC-1/GEN / 3 PNM-AIRF DT. 28.4.99 OF RAILWAY BOARD. EXT.P20:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 2.4.05 OPF 3RD PETITIONER IN C.P.(C) 95/04 IN OA. NO.47/04, WITHOUT ANNEXURES. EXT.P21:- COPY OF THE ADDL. AFFIDAVIT DT. 18.7.05 FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER IN CO (C) NO.95/04 IN OA.NO.47/2004 (WITHOUT ANNEXURE R7.) EXT.P22:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 2.10.05 FILED BY IST RESPONDENT IN C.P.(C) NO.95/04 IN OA. 47/04. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DT. 5.8.03. EXT.R1(b):- CP LETTER OF THE IST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DT. 12.5.04. EXT.R1(c):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DT. 17.6.05. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 35617 OF 2005 ============================ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioners are respondents in O.A.No.47/2004. By Ext.P2 order in that O.A.dated 12-4-2004, the claim of the applicant, who is the first respondent herein, for employment under the dying in harness scheme was directed to be reconsidered by the competent authority of the Railways. Pursuant to the said direction, Ext.P13 order was passed upholding the claim of the applicant. But when consequential proceedings were taken by the Railways pursuant to Ext.P13, the applicant felt that the same will amount to contempt of the Central Administrative Tribunal, inasmuch as the subsequent proceeding Ext.P15 was taken in gross violation of the directions in Ext.P2. So, the first respondent herein filed contempt application No.95/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P1 order taking the view that the first respondent in the contempt WPC.35617/2005 -2- application, who was the General Manager, Southern Railways, has prima facie committed contempt and directed to issue notice to all the respondents with a further direction to dispense with their personal appearance. The writ petitioner challenges the Ext.P2 order also in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner has already implemented Ext.P2 by issuing Ext.P13. But the first respondent is satisfied with that order also. After having passed that order and after considerable delay, the challenge made against Ext.P2 cannot be entertained. But, we are inclined to examine on merits the challenge made by them against Ext.P1. Going by Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have been made applicable to the contempt proceedings before the C.A.T. mutatis mutandis. Civil contempt is defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act which reads as follows: “(b)''civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.” Even if wilful disobedience is noticed from the part of the contemner, he is liable to be punished, if only the contempt is of such a substantial WPC.35617/2005 -3- nature so as to interfere with the due course of justice as provided under Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this case we notice that pursuant to Ext.P2, the competent authority of the Railways has passed Ext.P13 order. While implementing Ext.P13 order, if some irregularities are committed, the same will not amount to violation of Ext.P2. The first respondent has to work out her remedy independently to redress her grievance concerning the implementation of Ext.P13. Therefore, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ext.P1, is unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed. If the applicant/first respondent is aggrieved by Ext.P15 order passed by the Railways pursuant to Ext.P13, she will be free to challenge it in appropriate proceedings. 3. But the learned counsel for the first respondent voices an apprehension that the period of limitation to challenge Ext.P15 may be over. The first respondent has worked out her remedy against Ext.P15 by initiating contempt proceedings and the Central Administrative Tribunal has upheld her contention also in this regard. Therefore, she was bona fide pursuing her remedies against Ext.P15. So even if there is delay, the delay is fully justified and therefore the first respondent can move the Central Administrative Tribunal for WPC.35617/2005 -4- appropriate orders for condoning the delay, if any, in challenging Ext.P15. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case of the first respondent. Whether Ext.P15 is valid or not is a matter which shall be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal independently. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.