Om Prakash-Vii, Member â€" J
1. Heard Shri Dharmendra Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri M.K. Sharma learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. This contempt petition has been filed against the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1327/2013 Phuleshwar Vs. Union of
India and others. The operative portion of order dated 20.08.2018 is extracted herein below:-
“11. In the instant OA, the respondents have also cited the Railway Board letter dated 10.08.2005 to withdraw/cancel the family pension
which was sanctioned in favour of the applicant. The facts of the OA No. 387/2012 before Jabalpur Bench squarely covers the instant OA
as the issue was eligibility of married son / daughter having disability or disorder. As noted in the order extracted above, the Railway Board
letter dated 10.08.2005 has been overruled by the letter dated 16.01.2013 as well as by the provisions of the sub-rule 6 of the rule 75 of the
Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Hence, the impugned order dated 1.06.2006 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 30/31.05.2006
(Annexure A-2) are not accordance of the rule 75 (6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
12. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order dated 1.6.2006 and 30/31.05.2006 are set aside and quashed and the matter is
remitted to the respondents / competent authority to restore the family pension sanctioned in favour of the applicant earlier subject to
fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The respondents are further directed to
comply this order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The OA is allowed accordingly. There will be
no order as to costs.â€
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while deciding the OA No. 1327 of 2013, impugned order dated 1.6.2006 and 30/31.05.2006
were set aside and quashed. Matter was remitted back to the respondents/competent authority to restore the family pension sanctioned in favour of
the applicant earlier. It is further argued that when directions given in the aforesaid OA were not complied with, present contempt petition has been
filed. Although family pension of the applicant has been restored but it is only with effect from 24.09.2012 whereas family pension should have been
restored from the year 1995 and the arrears should have also been paid, which has not been paid, thus there is willful disobedience of the direction of
the Tribunal. Direction given in the OA has not been complied with, thus, prayer was made to summon the competent authority to face the charges to
be framed against him.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the compliance affidavit argued that although vide impugned orders challenged in the OA family
pension allowed to the applicant was discontinued but after decision in the OA, it was restored in the light of OM No. 1/33/2012-P&PW (E) dated
16.01.2013 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G & Pension, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare dated
16.01.2013. Referring to para 5 of the aforesaid OM, it was further argued that while allowing the family pension after discussion, it was clarified that
financial benefits in past cases will accrue with effect from 24th September 2012 only. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the para
11 of the judgment passed in the OA and further argued that OA was allowed on the basis that vide aforesaid OM dated 16.01.2013, the Railway
Board’s letter dated 10.08.2005 has been overruled, thus, argued that direction given in the OA has been complied with. There is no willful
disobedience of the direction of the Tribunal given in the OA, thus, prayer was made to close the proceedings of contempt and discharge the notices.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
6. Before discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it would be useful to quote para 5 of OM dated 16.01.2013:-
“5. It is clarified that financial benefits in past cases will accrue with effect from 24th September, 2012â€.
7. If compliance affidavit as well as compliance report filed in the compliance of the order are taken into consideration, it is clear fact that family
pension allowed to the applicant has been restored vide letters dated 2.5.2019 as well as 22.01.2019 issued by the respondents. Compliance affidavit
also reveals that family pension has been restored w.e.f. 24.09.2012. If para 11 of the judgment and order passed in the OA are taken into
consideration, Tribunal while allowing the OA has specifically observed that letter dated 10.08.2005 on which basis family pension was discontinued
has been overruled by the letter dated 16.01.2013 (supra). In para 5 of the aforesaid letter it is specifically mentioned that financial benefits in past
cases will accrue with effect from 24.09.2012. Respondents have already restored the family pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.09.2012.
8. If such is the position, plea taken by the petitioner that family pension should have been restored from the year 1995 is not acceptable. OA was
allowed taking into consideration the letter dated 16.01.2013 (supra), the same is not challenged and not overruled, thus, compliance made in the
matter is in accordance with direction given in the OA. We are also of the view that substantial compliance of the direction of the Tribunal has been
made, therefore, proceedings of contempt are liable to be closed. Accordingly, CCP is closed. Notices issued to the opposite parties stand discharged.
All associated MAs stand disposed of.
