Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Dec 6: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) while taking strong exception to the non-compliance of its order passed four years ago made it clear that in case the order is not complied by next date, then the Commissioner Secretary Planning Department shall remain present before the court on the next date.
It is noted that in the judgment under contempt, the authorities were directed to finalize the pension case of the applicant-Reyaz Ahmad Banday after retaining Rs 14,36,151 from his gratuity. Non-compliance of the order necessitated filing of the instant contempt by the Senior Counsel Showkat Ahmad Makroo.
Government counsel submitted that in the interest of justice, he be granted one week’s time to comply with the order passed by this court in its letter and spirit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was inclined to seek the personal presence of the Commissioner/Secretary, Planning Development Department, UT of J&K to explain his position.
“It is made clear that in case the order of the court dated 23-11-2020 is not complied with in its letter and spirit, Commissioner/Secretary, Planning, Development & Monitoring Department to be present before the court in person.
The presence of the official is sought in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to uphold the rule of law”, the bench of M S Latief (J) and Prasant Kumar (A) directed.
The Court observed that it is pained despite the order having been passed in the year 2020, the same has not been complied with when the order passed is clear and self-explanatory and it ought to have been complied with all the grace as nobody is above the law whosoever it is high or low.
“We are conscious that this Court cannot widen the scope of the order already passed non-compliance of which is alleged but this Court is not powerless to seek compliance of its order by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as Contempt of Court (CAT) Rules, 1992”, the bench warned.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
