SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.P. Singh and Arun Kumar, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1461 of 2005. (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22717 of 2004) D/d. 28.2.2005.

K.S. Gahlawat - Appellant

Versus

Jagdish Prasad - Respondent

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Section 17 - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Contempt proceedings - Original application before Tribunal raising dispute regarding retirement age of respondent - Authorities directed to dispose of the matter within two months in view of a notification which raised the retirement age to 60 years - Direction not implemented within the stipulated period - Contempt proceedings initiated - While disposing of contempt application, Tribunal granted the relief as prayed for by respondent in original - Held, tribunal not justified in granting the relief as prayed for by respondent in the original application itself - Order of Tribunal affirmed by High Court set aside - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 4 and 5]

Order

B.P. Singh, J. - We have heard counsel for the parties.

2. Special leave granted.

3. The dispute before the Central Administrative Tribunal was with regard to the age of retirement of the respondent. Reliance was placed on the notification dated 28-4-2003 which, according to the respondent, enhanced the age of superannuation to 60 years. The original application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal was disposed of on 29-10-2003 with a direction to the authorities to consider the aforesaid notification dated 28-4-2003 and to dispose of the matter within two months. It appears that the matter was not disposed of within two months as directed since the authorities were awaiting the directions of the Government of India in this regard.

4. In view of the failure of the petitioners to dispose of the matter within the time granted by the Tribunal, a contempt application was filed which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 27-5-2004. The Central Administrative Tribunal while disposing of the contempt application has granted the relief as prayed for by the respondent in the original application, rather than directing the authorities to dispose of the matter, as earlier directed.

5. In our opinion, the Central Administrative Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order on 27-5-2004 in a contempt proceeding. In a contempt proceeding the Tribunal could pass any order which it is authorised to pass in contempt jurisdiction, but the mere fact that the respondents failed to implement the direction of the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within the stipulated period, did not justify the Tribunal passing an order granting the relief asked for in the original application itself.

6. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal which was affirmed by the High Court by its order dated 8-7-2004. However, we direct the authority concerned to comply with the order of the Tribunal dated 29-10-2003 within a period of two months from today. This appeal is allowed in the above terms.

7. It is stated that the representation made by the respondent has been disposed of by the competent authority on 22-12-2003. If that be so, it will be open to the respondent to challenge that decision in accordance with law if so advised.

8. The appeal is allowed.

Appeal allowed.