Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) Assailing the order dated 3.6.2008 passed in contempt application being Civil Procedure Code 94 of 2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, arose out of alleged violation of the order dated 6.4.2005 passed in O.A. No. 820 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the alleged contemner, the General Manager. Mint, Kolkata to appear personally, this writ application has been filed. Impugned order reads such : "Mr. S.K. Dutta, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is a specific direction of this Tribunal at paras 24, 25 and 26 of the order dated 6.4.2005 which are as follows : ...24. I have considered the contention taken by both sides and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant at par with the others who were given the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground which were issued prior to 5.5.2003. The respondents have shown discrimination to the applicant by rejecting the claim of the applicant. When the respondents have shown discrimination under the ground of discretion the Tribunal can interfere. 25. Accordingly. I direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds on par with Dilip Kumar Tahar, Prasua Kumar Nayak. Kalidas Mondal, Susan Sardar, Nabin Mukherjee and Prasanta Bhattacharjee. I consider that the contention taken by the respondents is not correct. They cannot rely on O.M. dated 5.5.2003 in the case of existence prior to 5.5.2003 shall be referred and consider the case of the applicant. 26. With the above observations, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of relief only on the ground of discrimination. In these circumstances, the OA is allowed." 2. Mr. A.K. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the respondents says that after considering the matter as per direction of the Tribunal the respondents have issued a speaking order on 7.8.2006 the copy of which is placed on record. The relevant portion of the said order may be read as follows : "The Review Committee thus submitted the relevant report to the undersigned and after taking into consideration all factors relating to pecuniary conditions etc. and a relative comparison with other appointees on compassionate ground as well during the year (i.e. 1998, 1997, 1999, 1998 & 1998), it is found that the case of Sri Ramudas Jaiswara does not come under the zone of consideration for giving him employment on compassionate ground. As such, your request for compassionate appointment under died-in harness is hereby turned down." 3. On perusal of the said speaking order we find that the respondents have not followed the direction of the Tribunal in the matter of consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. The penultimate para of the order dated 7.8.2006 makes it evident that the respondents have sat over the judgment of the Tribunal and as a matter of fact they have controverted the same and have not complied with the direction. We are not satisfied with the reply of the respondents. However, we give further one week's time for compliance of the order and if it is not complied with by the next date, the General Manager, Mint, Kolkata will appear personally before this Tribunal to explain why action under contempt proceeding will not be drawn up against him. Let matter be listed for orders on 13.8.2008. 4. A plain copy of this order be made available to the learned Counsel for both the parties."
(3.) Contempt application under the Administrative Tribunal Act is controlled by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has empowered the framing of rule to dispose of the contempt application. In terms of such, the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992 was framed and published in the Gazette of India on 8.9.1992. These rules are titled as the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992. Under the Contempt's Rules, 1992, under Rule 8. a preliminary hearing is required to be given by the concerned Bench for satisfaction that a prima facie case of contempt has been made out and on being satisfied, a notice to the respondent is required to be served. Rule 8 reads such : "8. Preliminary hearing and notice.-(i) The Bench is satisfied that a prima acie case has been made out, may direct issue of notice to the respondent; otherwise, it shall dismiss the petition or drop the proceedings. (ii) The notice shall be in Form No. I and shall be accompanied by a copy of the petition or information, and annexures if any, thereto. (iii) Service of notice shall be effected in the manner specified in the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 or in such other manner as may be directed by the Bench.";