- (1.)This contempt petition is filed complaining that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 22nd November, 2013 and, therefore, prayed that the respondents be punished for contempt and also direct the respondents to implement the judgment of this Court dated 22nd November, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013.
(2.)The brief factual background of the above Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013 is as follows:-
The applicant herein is an Officer of the Indian Revenue Service who was kept under suspension on certain allegations of misconduct on 28.12.1999. On the basis of the said allegations, criminal cases are also pending against the applicant. In view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the applicant's suspension continued for a long period. Eventually, the applicant challenged two orders dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012 by which his suspension was continued in O.A. No. 495 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. By its order dated 1.6.2012, the Tribunal allowed the above mentioned O.A.. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

"Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that (i) the directions of the Tribunal issued to the respondents in OA NO. 2842/2010 decided on 16.12.2011 have not been complied with in both letter and spirit while passing the impugned orders dated 12.01.2012 and 03.02.2012; and (ii) the continuance of the applicants suspension is not tenable. In the result, the orders dated 12.01.2012 and 03.02.2012 are quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to revoke his suspension and to reinstate him in service. The applicant would be entitled to legally admissible consequential benefits.

We make it very clear that taking note of the grave charges leveled against him, the applicant may be posted in a non-sensitive post where the Competent Authority considers that he would have neither access to the relevant records nor would have opportunity to influence the witnesses. We also further add that if at any point of time in future the criminal trial proceedings commence by the trial Court, the respondents would have the liberty to consider the possibility of keeping the officer under suspension at that point of time if the facts and circumstances so warrant."

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein preferred the writ petition(c) no. 5247 of 2012 before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed in limine by a judgment dated 17.9.2012.

Not satisfied with the said judgment, the respondents approached this Court in SLP(C) No. 30368 of 2012 which eventually came to be numbered as Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013.

This Court by its judgment dated 22.11.2013 dismissed the said appeal.

(3.)The grievance of the petitioner in the contempt is that though he succeeded in O.A. No. 495 of 2012 which order was confirmed both by the High Court as well as by this Court, the respondents have not given him "legally admissible consequential benefits" as directed in the Order of the Administrative Tribunal.