- (1.) THIS application is against an order passed in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in c. P. C. 10 of 2006 in connection with O. A. 652/2004. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondents has not questioned the maintainability of the application, therefore, we make it clear that without going into the question of maintainability we shall examine the matter on merit. The fact of the case is as follows:
(2.) THE respondents herein made an application, being O. A. 652/2004, before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of temporary status by regularization as if they were working as Casual Production Assistants in the doordarshan Kendra, Kolkata. The said application was heard extensively and upon hearing, learned Tribunal disposed of the same by passing an order dated November 16, 2005. The relevant ordering portion of the said order is quoted hereunder: "8. In order to do justice to the applicants we feel ends of justice would be met if following directions are given to the respondents: it there are 14 vacancies of Production assistants with the respondents they shall, consider absorbing the applicants against those vacancies as per the prevalent recruitment rules of All India Radio (Doordarshan) by giving them relaxation of age for the number of years they have been working with the respondents provided they fulfill all other eligibility criteria as mentioned in the prevalent recruitment rules of All India Radio. This shall be done within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case vacancies are not available with the respondents and they still need the services of Production assistants, they shall continue to engage the applicants as Production Assistants till regular appointments are made as per the recruitment Rules. The applicants shall not be replaced by a new set of casual production Assistants. Of course if any of the applicants indulges in misconduct of serious nature, it would be open to the respondents to take action against such of the applicant in accordance with law. Respondents shall also take up the matter with the higher authorities to see how interest of these applicants can be protected and how their services can be regularized. We are not giving any direction to the respondents to frame another scheme as it is for the Government to take up these issues and decide them as a policy matter looking at the welfare of the casual employees whose services are being utilized for years together by them. "
(3.) THE aforesaid judgment and order was sought to be challenged belatedly by filing a writ application in this Court on or about november 22, 2007 by an application, being w. P. C. T. 707/2007. The said application was dismissed in limine recording that the aforesaid order has been accepted. However, this order was not carried out so contempt application was filed by which the impugned judgment and order was passed.;