- (1.) THE petitioner, a retired Khalasi of the Railways, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11. 1. 2007 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the contempt petition of the applicant after recording that the directions of the Tribunal have been complied with and there is no willful disobedience. He has further prayed for an appropriate calculation of his pension amount which according to him, has remained unpaid.
(2.) THE petitioner superannuated on 30. 6. 1983 and a pension pay order was drawn up copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. THE said pension pay order recites that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs. 66/- and according to the endorsement made thereon the said pension order was revised and the amount was stepped up to Rs. 150/-, inclusive of the additional reliefs which were admissible in terms of the circular of the Railway Board. The actual payment to the applicant was subsequently delayed and the petitioner alleges that he filed several representations but of no avail, as a result whereof the approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was disposed of on 7. 2. 2001 with a direction to approach the railway authorities. No action was taken by the respondent Railways where after the petitioner preferred a second writ petition before this Court and the same was dismissed on 29. 9. 2003 on the ground that he had the remedy of filing a contempt application. Immediately upon the dismissal of the said writ petition, the respondent Railways passed an order on 5th November, 2003, advising the concerned bank, which had been disbursing the pension amount to the petitioner, to make the payments as per the re calculations indicated therein. The said letter is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application wherein he sought the relief of an appropriate direction to calculate the pension of the petitioner correctly w. e. f. 1. 7. 1983 at the rate of Rs. 326 per month up to 1985 which had been wrongly paid to him at the rate of Rs. 150 per month. The prayer clause which has been extracted in the order of the tribunal, copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the writ petition, does not indicate any prayer for quashing of the letter/advise dated 5. 11. 2003. Nonetheless, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the claim of the petitioner and found that the pension of the petitioner had been fixed but the respondents were not aware as to whether the amount which had been fixed, had actually been paid or not. In view of this, the Tribunal issued directions that the railway authorities shall ensure the payment of retiral dues and dearness relief admissible thereon to the applicant from time to time, within a period of two months, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date it was due to the applicant. This judgment by the Tribunal was delivered on 3. 12. 2004.
(3.) THE applicant alleging non-compliance of the said order moved Contempt Petition No. 32 of 2005 before the Tribunal and prayed for taking action against the railway authorities. In the said contempt petition, affidavits were exchanged and the Tribunal also summoned the relevant records with a direction to the Divisional Finance Manager of the Railways for preparing a statement of accounts indicating the actual payment to the petitioner. This was done on the allegation of the petitioner that he was being paid only Rs. 66/- per month as pension. After the affidavits were filed, the Tribunal found that as per statement of the concerned bank and their letter dated 10. 3. 2005, the payments that were due, including the difference of pension as per order of the Railways dated 5. 11. 2003, had been made and future payments were also being made to the petitioner. THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that the entitlement of pension being claimed by the petitioner, did not require any further investigation as the Tribunal was of the view that the direction of the Tribunal had been complied with. Accordingly, the notices were discharged and the contempt petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before us in this writ petition. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the Railways relying on the decision of T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt of A. P, (2001) 1 SCC 516 to the effect that the writ petition would not be maintainable before this Court against the order impugned and the remedy of the petitioner lies by way of an appeal before the Apex Court in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act read with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.;