Contempt petition by Chandigarh resident: CAT restrains DC from drawing salary

The tribunal had earlier directed the DC office to release the pensionary benefits to the applicant in January this year.

By: Express News Service | Chandigarh | Published:October 25, 2016 11:54 am
Contempt petition, Chandigarh residents, Central administration tribunal, Deputy commissioner, Chandigarh, Chandigarh news, India news Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Monday directed the deputy commissioner (DC) of Sector 17 not to draw his salary till its orders were not complied with by the DC office. The tribunal directed the respondents while taking up a contempt petition filed by a resident of Sector 22, Davinder Singh Balouria. The matter will next come up for hearing on November 2 and the DC has been asked to comply with the orders.

Watch what else is making news

The tribunal had earlier directed the DC office to release the pensionary benefits to the applicant in January this year. As the benefits were not released, the applicant filed a contempt petition in the tribunal.

Pronouncing the orders, the tribunal said: “The orders of the tribunal have not been complied with despite sufficient opportunities. The deputy commissioner is also disobeying orders regarding his personal appearance. To say the least this is highly unfortunate.”

Pointing out on the conduct of the official the tribunal observed, “If responsible authorities do not obey the orders of the court, the system of adjudication and administration of justice would collapse. Respondent shall also not draw their salary till compliance of the orders of the Tribunal.”

Balouria had sought direction to be issued to the respondents to release his pensionary benefits, including his gratuity, commutation of pension and pension in an application filed in 2015. He was appointed as a Patwari in 1976 and retired as a Tehsildar in May 2014. He claimed in the application that there was no departmental inquiry or criminal case pending against him on the day of his retirement. In reply, the respondents stated that two vigilance inquiries were pending against the applicant in the vigilance cell.