R. MOHAJAN & ORS. versus SHEFALI SENGUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 30-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 974 
R. MOHAJAN & ORS. 
v. 
SHEFALI SENGUPTA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3297 of 2012) 
MARCH 30, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.J 
Service law - Promotion - Seniority list challenged by 
respondents - Certain directions issued by the Tribunal to the 
C appellants-department, however, non-implementation of the 
said directions by the appellants -: Tribunal in the contempt 
· petition filed before it directing the appellants to be present 
before the court to receive the charges of contempt - On 
appeal, h1':Jld: Though the Tribunal expressed that its order was 
D not complied with, the appellants pointed out that as per the 
order the promotion was granted to the respondents from the 
earliest date which is admissible as per rules and as provided 
by the Railway Board; that the Tribunal had ignored the fact 
that the consequential benefits at par with juniors have been 
E complied with - Also the seniority of the respondents has 
been protected and granting promotion to a grade to which 
they had not yet obtained in their parent department would not 
only deprive promotional benefit to those who have been 
serving in the department but would involve the promotion 
F policy being revised - While considering the seniority or 
promotion, the court cannot go into and examine the same 
contrary to the Rules/Policy applicable to the persons 
concerned framed by the Government - Thus, the direction 
of the Tribunal in the contempt petition is unsustainable and 
set aside - Since the appellants have. complied with the 
G earlier order of the Tribunal, contempt petition dismissed. 
H 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Order passed 
by the Tribunal in a contempt proceedings before it - Appeal 
974 
R. MOHAJAN & ORS. v. SHEFALI SENGUPTA & 
975 
ORS. 
by way of special leave before the Supreme Court against the A 
order of the Tribunal, without exercising the remedy before the 
High Court - Maintainability of - Held: Appeal by way of 
special leave is maintainable and is the appropriate remedy 
- Any order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt 
is appealable u/s. 19 of the 1971 Act to the Supreme Court B 
only- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 19 - Administrative 
Tribunals Act, 1985 -
17. 
Respondents filed an application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal challenging their seniority lists. By C 
order dated 09.05.2005, the Tribunal allowed the 
application with a direction to the appellants-Department 
to grant the respondents seniority from the date of their 
appointment on their respective posts prior to their 
transfers to the Railways with all consequential benefits. 
The appellants did not implement the directions of the D 
Tribunal, as such the respondents filed contempt petition 
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order dated 
11.06.2010 directing the contemnors/appellants to be 
present in the court on the next date of hearing for 
receiving the charges of contempt and adjourned the E 
matter. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. After the order dated 09.05.2005 passed 
F 
by the Tribunal the respondents, who are the 
beneficiaries of that order, filed a petition before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal contending that the order 
has not been implemented in full by the appellants. After 
considering its earlier order dated 09.05.2005 and the 
relief granted to the personnel, the Tribunal in the G 
contempt proceedings, by the impugned order, directed 
the contemnors (appellants) to be present in Court on the 
next date of hearing and to receive the charges of 
contempt. In such circumstances, the aggrieved parties 
are at liberty to approach this Court without exercising H 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
the remedy before the High Court, as observed in L. 
Chandra Kumar's case. It is clear from the direction in L 
Chandra Kum~r's case that no appeal from the decision 
of the Tribunal will directly lie before this Court under 
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, but instead, the 
B aggrieved party has to move the High Court under 
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and thereafter from 
the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the 
aggrieved parties are free to approach this Court. In view 
of the said direction, though the counsel for the 
c respondents was right in contending the same, however, 
the Constitution Bench had no occasion to consider t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.