SUDHANSHU RANJAN Vs. AMIT KHARE
LAWS(SC)-2021-8-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 16,2021

Sudhanshu Ranjan Appellant
VERSUS
Amit Khare Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By the order of this Court dated 26 September 2018, Civil Appeal Nos 11948 -11950 of 2016 were disposed of in the following terms: "10 While affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, we clarify that (i) promotions which have already been effected and the existing seniority shall not be affected; (ii) in the case of employees who have retired, a notional pay fixation shall be carried out and retiral benefits, including pension, if any, shall be determined on that basis; and (iii) individual cases for promotion would be considered against vacancies available, keeping seniority in view."
(2.) Contempt proceedings were initiated for non-compliance. The contempt proceedings were disposed of on 29 November 2019 in terms of the following order: "Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General states that a letter has been addressed today [29 November 2019] by the Union of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to the Union Public Service Commission forwarding a proposal for convening a limited Review DPC for the years 2003-04 to 2007-08 for considering three Senior Time Scale officers for promotion to Junior Administrative Grade of Programme Management Cadre of IB(P)S in the Directorate General of Doordarshan. Since steps have been initiated now, we are of the view that the authorities have taken steps to comply with the judgment and order passed by this Court on 26 September 2018. We direct that all steps for implementing the judgment and order of this Court dated 26 September 2018 shall be completed within a period of three months from today. All consequential steps required to be initiated in terms of the judgment and order of this Court shall also be initiated within a period of one month from today and completed within three months. The contempt petitions are disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to apply for revival of the contempt proceedings in the event that it becomes necessary to do so in future."
(3.) Since the grievance of the petitioner is that the order has not been complied with, this Miscellaneous Application is filed for revival of the contempt proceedings. The petitioner continues to be in service.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.