Antony Dominic, J.
Heard the Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The challenge in this original petition is against Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Briefly stated, the issue raised is that the respondents filed O.A.1182/12 before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying for finalisation of a Scheme for their regularisation in service. That O.A. was disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 22.11.2013 directing to finalise the Scheme within six months. However, the Scheme was not finalised and that lead to filing of Contempt Petition 42/2014. After the contempt application was filed, the petitioners filed an application for review of order in O.A. along with an application to condone the delay of 305 days in filing the same. In the meanwhile, the Tribunal passed Ext.P4 order dated 4.9.2014 directing the present incumbent of third respondent to appear before the Tribunal on 13.9.2014. Subsequently, an application was made by the third respondent mentioned in Ext.P4 for dispensing with his personal appearance. That prayer was declined by Ext.P7 order dated 26.9.2014 and he was directed to appear on 30.9.2014. Subsequently, another application was made by the contemnor to dispense with his personal presence on 30.9.2014 and that prayer was allowed by the Tribunal by Ext.P8 dated 30.9.2014 and he was directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.10.2014.
3. Proceedings also show that the review application and the application for condonation of delay also stands posted along with the Contempt Petition. In these circumstances, this Original Petition is filed mainly aggrieved by the directions in Exts.P7 and P8 requiring the personal presence of the third petitioner.
4. On facts it is not in dispute that Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal is not implemented so far. However, that non implementation of Ext.P2 is sought to be justified by the petitioners by contenting that an erroneous submission made by them lead to the passing of that order. It is stated that it is seeking to rectify that error they filed review petition along with an application for condonation of delay which are pending consideration of the Tribunal.
The claim of the petitioners that an erroneous submission was made before the Tribunal and that therefore, Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal is also erroneous is disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Still fact remains that, as on date the review application is pending consideration of the Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. The respondents have also filed their objections in the matter. In such circumstances, we are of the view that at this stage the presence of the third petitioner is unnecessary. Therefore, we dispose of this Original Petition with the following directions:
1) that the Tribunal will pass orders on the review application and the application for condonation of delay, as expeditiously as possible.
2) Until the review application and the petition for condonation of delay is decided, the personal presence of the third petitioner would not be insisted and depending upon the outcome of the review, the Tribunal shall pass orders on that issue as well.
3) In the meanwhile, Exts.P4, P7 and P8 orders will be kept in abeyance and will be enforced depending upon the outcome of the review petition.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge jes ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge