UNION OF INDIA AND ANR . versus P.M. RANGASAMI

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR . 
A 
v. 
P.M. RANGASAMI 
MAY 15,2007 
[DR ARlflT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law-Promotion-Direction of Tribunal lo Appellant to 
.. 
consider Respondent for promotion to Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) 
>--
with reference to his original seniority in Grade-III-Case of Respondent 
considered but he was not recommended for promotion-Appellant held c 
guilty of contempt for deliberate non-compliance with the direction of 
Tribunal-Justification of-Held, not justified-There was no direction for 
promotion and only for consideration-Question of any automatic promotion 
did not arise-Tribunal never held that Respondent was entitled to 
promotion-Contempt of Court. 
D 
Respondent was in the Indian Economic Service. Tribunal directed 
..., 
Appellant to consider Respondent for Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) 
with reference to his original seniority in Grade-ill i.e. w.e.f. the date on which 
T 
his alleged juniors in Grade-III of the service were promoted to HAG. The 
Government issued a detailed speaking order dealing with the representation E 
of the Respondent and informing him that his case has been considered in 
terms of the order of the Tribunal and that upon such consideration he has 
not been recommended for promotion to HAG. 
Tribunal by the impugned judgment held Appellant No.I and its named F 
functionary guilty of contempt holding that its earlier directions had not been 
"'t 
complied with deliberately and that the functionaries and various officers acted 
y 
in a canalized manner in flouting such directions. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There was no direction for promotion and only for G 
consideration. Therefore, the question of any automatic promotion does not 
arise. The Tribunal never held that the respondent was entitled to promotion 
~ 
notwithstanding losing seniority. It appears from the record that despite losing 
seniority respondent was considered for promotion to HAG on the basis of 
693 
H 
~ 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 6 S.C.R. 
A Tribunal's order. (Para 31] [700-C) 
2. The parameters to be considered while deciding as to whether 
contempt has been committed has been considered by this Court in several 
cases. In view of thereof, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that contempt 
had been committed. If the respondent has any grievance, it is open to him to 
B assail the same in an appropriate proceeding. (Paras 32 and 33) (700-D, E) 
Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., JT (2004) 8 SC 
165, Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Ors. v. Ved Prakash Joshi and 
Ors., JT (2005) 6 SC 276, Dilip Mitra v. Swadesh Chandra Bhadga, (2002) 6 
Supreme 249, Chhoty Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and Anr., [2001) 7 SCC 530 
C and Suresh Chandra Poddar v. Dhani Ram and Ors., [2002) 1 SCC 766, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 
2006. 
D 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2006 of the CAT, Madras 
Bench in CPNo. 21/2005. 
Vikas Singh, ASG., S. Wasim A. Qadri, P. Parmc;.swaran for the Appellant. 
R.M. Rangasami Respondent-In-Person. 
E 
Dr. A.K. Belwal Applicant-In-Person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
F rendered by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in 
short the 'Tribunal'). The Tribunal was of the view that the appellant no. I and 
its named functionary were guilty of contempt. However, another officer was 
exonerated. It was held that the order dated 30.4.2004 passed by the Tribunal 
in OA No.1002/2003 haJ not been complied with deliberately and, therefore, 
G 
the said act amounted to contempt.It was observed that the functionaries and 
various officers acted in a canalized manner in flouting the directions of the 
Tribunal. 
2. Background facts as projected by the appellants need to be noted in 
some detail as there is great deal of factual controversies and much would 
H depend upon the effects of various acts on different dates. 
... 
.. 
~ 
j-
• 
).._ 
...,. 
--..,. 
U.0.1 v. P.M.RANGASAMI [PASAYAT,J.] 
695 
3. On 20.6.1968 Mr. M.M. Nampoothiry and Mr. D.K. Trehanjoined the A 
Indian Economic Services in Grade IV. The respondent Mr. P.M. Rangaswami 
also joiµed the Indian Economic Services in Grade IV on 8.7.1970 
4. On 11.6.86, in view of the judgment of this Court in Narender Chadha 
and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 157 the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.