A
SH. VIJAY SINGH, SECRETARY HOME AND ANR.
v.
MITTANLAL HJNDOLIYA
NOVEMBER I, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law :
Date of birth-Correction of-Application by employee-Tribunal
directing employer to consider representation of the emp/oyee-
C Representation rejected-Held, representation was duly considered and
rejected-Tribunal's order not deliberately disobeyed-Tribunal ought not
have issued further directions to consider the case afresh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14920 of
D 1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.95 of the Madhya Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Indore in M.A.N0.99 of 1994.
Prashant Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants.
Dr. J.B. Gaur for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
Delay condoned
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order in the contempt
G proceedings dated August 1, 1995 made by the Madhya Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal at Indore in Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of
1994.
The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as a Sub-
Inspector in the Police Department on January I, 1960 and his date of
H birth in the High School Certificate was August 5, 1934. In 1992, he filed
350
VIJAY SINGH,SECY.HOMEv. MIITANLALHINDOLIYA
351
an application in the Tribunal for correction of his date of birth contending A
that his date of birth was July 16, 1938. The Tribunal by order dated
February 25, 1994 disposed of the application with a direction to consider
the representation of the respondent. The representation was considered
and rejected by proceedings dated May 23, 1994. Consequently, the
respondent filed a contempt application contending that the appellants
have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal and B
sought for initiation of the proceedings against the appellants under Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the impugned order, the Tribunal
has held that the respondent has not deliberately disobeyed the orders of
the court as direction was to consider the case·afresh on the finding that
the Director General of Police had not applied his mind to the issue and,
therefore, the impugned order came to be issued. The question is: whether C
the Tribunal was right in its giving directions? It is seen that the Assistant
Inspector General of Police who is the Administrative officer assists the
Administrator, namely, the Director General of PoUce. He had put up the
note on it and after consideration of it the Director General of Police had
made a note 'inform the respondent'. Obviously, after consideration of
the case he did not agree with the claim of the respondent and accepted the D
report submitted by his subordinate, viz. Assistant Inspector General of
Police. Thus, it would be a case where due consideration was given to the
respondent's representation as per the .directions given by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal having held that the respondent has not deliberately dirnbeyed
the order, there is no power to issue further directions:
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The directions are set aside, No
costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
E
Lex