. FLASH !!! DIWALI GIFT- SUPDT TO AC ORDERS ISSUED

yes

IT IS INFORMED TO VIEWERS THAT THIS BLOGGER IS MAINTAINING THIS BLOG IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS SOCIAL SERVICE. EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE LATEST INFORMATION AS IT IS AVAILABLE.INSTEAD OF PASSING REMARKS ALL ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE THIS BLOG.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

SUPREME COURT ORDER IN CONTEMPT PETITION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.295/2012 IN W.P(C) NO.385/2010
ALL INDIA ASSN.OF CEN.EXC.& ANR. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
R.S. GUJRAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.285/2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1198/2005
S.P. DUDEJA & ANR. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
S.K. GOEL & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel in support of the first contempt petition and Mr. J.K. Das, learned senior counsel in support of the second contempt petition. Both these petitions are filed alleging breach of the order dated 3.8.2011passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1198 of 2005 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 2010. The petitioners in the first contempt petition belong to the cadre of Superintendents of Central Excise, whereas the petitioners in the second contempt petition belong to the cadre of Superintendents of Customs (Preventive). There is one more cadre of the same rank which is that of Customs Appraisers. The posts in these three cadres are Group B posts. They are the feeder cadres for promotion to the posts of Assistant Commissioners (Central Excise & Customs) which are Group A posts.
2. These three cadres were then having the ratio of 6:1:2 for promotion to Group A posts. The issue was with respect to the proper representation of the three cadres. When the above referred writ petition and civil appeal were heard, this Court did not express any opinion on the merits of their claims, and it was left to the Government to alter the existing ratio after considering the representations of all the parties concerned. While disposing of the appeal and the writ petition this Court gave certain directions. Direction No.4 out of them read as follows:
“4. Having perused one of the Office Orders (No.51/2011 dated 18th March, 2011), whereby
some officers were promoted from Group 'B' to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in the Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on purely ad hoc basis, we direct that all such ad hoc promotions shall abide by the final decisions to be taken by the Department in terms of this order.”

3. It has so transpired that the relevant rules have been subsequently revised and now the quota for the three cadres for promotion to the Group A posts is in the ratio of 13:1:2. The new quota is made applicable prospectively.
4. The submission of the petitioners is that by this Court's order dated 3.8.2011, directions were issued to the respondents which have not been complied with by them. The petitioners contend that this direction No.4 implies a retrospective application of the revised formula on the quota for each cadre, since the promotions effected in the meanwhile were on an ad hoc basis. That was not done.
5. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervening parties, Mr. Rajiv Nanda appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submitted that the submission made on behalf of the petitioners is erroneous. The order did not state anywhere that the quota when changed will apply retrospectively. At best it could be said that according to thepetitioners the implementation was not in conformity with the directions of this Court passed on 3.8.2011, but there is no disobedience, whatsoever, of the directions in making the newly formed quota applicable prospectively.
6. Having noted the submissions of both the parties, we are in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the Union of India as well as the intervenors. All that the order dated 3.8.2011 says is that the ad hoc promotions made in the meanwhile will abide by the final decision to be taken by the Department in terms of Office Order. There is no direction to apply the new quota retrospectively. We do not see that there is any contempt of this Court's order dated 3.8.2011 by the respondents. The contempt petitions are accordingly dismissed.
.........................J
(H.L. GOKHALE)
...........................J
(DIPAK MISRA)
New Delhi;
March 12, 2013.


ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.12 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 295 OF 2012 IN W.P(C) NO. 385/2010
ALL INDIA ASSN.OF CEN.EXC.& ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
R.S. GUJRAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) NO. 285 of 2012 in C.A. No. 1198/2005
(With application for impleadment)
Date:12/03/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Singh,Sr.Adv.
(in CP 295/12) Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Adbhut Pathak,Adv.
(in CP 285/12) Mr. J.K. Das,Sr.Adv.
Mr. S.K. Das,ADv.
Mr. Avijeet Bhujabal,Adv.
Mr. P.P. Nayak,Adv.
Mr. D.M. Sharma,Adv.
For Mr. Parmanand Gaur,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Raval,ASG
Mr. Rajiv Nanda,Adv.
Mr. V.K. Biju,Adv.
Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv.
for Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv.
Mr. P.S. Patwalia,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Samar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv.
-2-6
Mr. Amarendra Sharan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. L.R. Singh,Adv.
Mr. S.C. Jha,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.  We do not see that there is any contempt of this
Court's order dated 3.8.2011 by the respondents. The contempt petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)

No comments: