Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh,J.
Heard Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri S.S. Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Basant Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 3 and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the respondents have stated that the respondents do not wish to file any counter affidavit.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of at this stage.
Smt. Vijay Laxmi Pandey was an employee of the Railways, who died in harness. The dispute in the present petition is with regard to the death-cum-terminal benefits of Smt. Vijay Laxmi Pandey. The petitioners are the sisters of the said late Smt. Vijay Laxmi Pandey and claim to receive the terminal benefits on the strength of a Will, which was executed in their favour by the deceased employee. The respondent no. 3 Shri Dhanpat Panday claims the payment of the terminal benefits in his favour on the ground of being husband of the deceased employee.
In this regard a civil suit has been filed by the petitioners bearing No. 648 of 2011, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allahabad. When the Railways did not pay the claim of the terminal benefits to respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 filed an O.A. No. 1139 of 2011 before Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 2.11.2011 with the following order:
"O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage itself. The respondents are directed to decide the pending representation of the applicant within a period of three months from the date when a copy of this Order is received by them. The applicant shall produce a copy of the order at the earliest. The respondents shall decide specifically whether the applicant being dependent of his wife, is entitled for payment of terminal benefits after the death of his wife and for family pension. A reasoned and speaking order be passed this connection within the time specified above. No costs."
Interestingly, in the said O.A. filed before the Tribunal, the respondent no. 3 had not impleaded the petitioners herein as party.
The respondent No. 3 is admittedly a party in the Civil Suit where he has also filed written statement and is contesting the matter. According to the respondent No. 3, when the representation was not decided by the Railways in terms of the order dated 2.11.2011, respondent No. 3 filed a contempt petition No. 35 of 2012 before the Tribunal in which an order was passed on 9.5.2012 giving one month's time to the Railways authorities to pass a fresh order.
A counter affidavit had been filed by the Railways annexing therewith the compliance report, wherein it was mentioned that in compliance of the order dated 2.11.2011, the Divisional Railway Manager had already passed an order dated 23.4.2012 wherein it was clearly stated that the claim of respondent no. 3 is opposed by the petitioners as sisters of the deceased employee on the strength of Will deed executed by Smt. Vijay Lakshmi Pandey on 22.12.2008 executed during her lifetime. It is also mentioned in the said order that the petitioners have filed a Civil Suit (which is pending) in which the Railway Authorities as well as the respondent no. 3 are impleaded as defendents and as the matter is sub-judice, and as such it would be in the interest of justice that the decision in the civil suit be awaited.It was also communicated to respondent No. 3 that "in view of the legal situation, all terminal benefits including family pension have been kept withheld and will be released after decision of Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Allahabad. At this stage no benefit can be extended in your favour'.
Even though, the order dated 2.11.2011 passed by the Tribunal has been complied with, then too the Tribunal proceeded to direct the Railway Authorities to pass a fresh order within one month and fixed 6.7.2012, on which date if no fresh order was passed as per the rules, the contemnor has been required to appear in person.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the order has been passed in compliance of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 2.11.2011, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider the correctness of the order dated 23.4.2012 passed by the Railways and the contempt petition ought to have been dismissed.
Shri Upadhayay, has however, stated that the order which was passed by the Railway Authorities was not as per the Rules and did not give sufficient justification for not giving payment to respondent No. 3 and as such, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in directing the Railways Authorities to pass a fresh order.
The O.A. No. 1339 of 2011 filed by the respondent No. 3 was finally disposed of by the Tribunal on 2.11.2011. The only direction was to decided the claim of the petitioners, which was decided by order dated 23.4.2012. The Railway Authorities had complied with the said direction communicating respondent No. 3 that for reasons given in the said order, no benefit could be extended to him as the Civil Suit was pending before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Allahabad.
The contempt Court could not look into the correctness of the order passed in compliance of the directions issued in a petition which has already been disposed of. If it all, respondent No. 3 could have challenged the order dated 23.4.2012 before the appropriate forum and once the order dated 2.11.2011 has been complied with, the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with the contempt petition and issue direction to pass a fresh order, which amounts to adjudging the correctness of the order dated 23.4.2012, which is beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction.
As such, by passing such a directions the Tribunal has in fact set aside the order dated 23.4.2012 without there being any such prayer made by the respondent No. 3. Even otherwise the said prayer could not have been made by the respondent No. 3 in a contempt petition.
For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 9.5.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in CCP No. 35 of 2012 in O.A. NO. 1139 of 2011 is accordingly quashed.
Order Date :- 3.7.2012 Sumaira