http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1375 of 2008

PETITIONER: BIMAL BANDYOPADHYAY

RESPONDENT: MD. HALIM SK

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/02/2008

BENCH: CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R (arising out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.20850 OF 2005)

1.      Leave granted. 2.      The respondent was not satisfied with the order passed by the petitioner-appellant  (the Superintending Archaeologist, A.S.I., Calcutta Circle) on 1.3.2002 holding  that  respondent was not eligible for appointment on regular basis and for temporary status. The  said order was passed pursuant to the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal issue d  on 5.12.2001 in O.A.NO.324/1994 to consider his case for absorption/regularisation.  He,  therefore, filed contempt petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Benc h.   The Tribunal passed an order on 10.1.2003 in the said contempt proceeding directing  reconsideration of the case of the respondent afresh.  That order was challenged by the  appellant before the High Court and the High Court has dismissed the same by the impugned  order dated 21.4.2005.

3.      Though the respondent was served with a notice he has not chosen to enter  appearance.  If the respondent was not satisfied with the order dated 1.3.2002, he ought to  have challenged that order in a separate proceedings.  It could not be said that passing of  the  said order was a disobedience. Further, the Tribunal could not, in a contempt proceedings,  direct the employer to reconsider its decision on merits. The order of the Tribunal and the  High Court cannot be sustained. 4.      This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the said orders by the Central Administrative   Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.      Liberty is, however, reserved to respondent  to  challenge the order dated 1.3.2002 in accordance with law.