JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri N.L.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.9.2011 and 2.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 56 of 2011. 3. vide order dated 21.9.2011, Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 56 of 2011 in Original Application No. 838 of 2010 (Sibte Hasan v. J.S.Sonndhi) had been dismissed and notice issued was discharged for the reasons that the applicant-petitioner has admitted that the order of the Tribunal has been complied with. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 2.11.2011, the Tribunal has dismissed the application seeking recall of the order dated 21.9.2011 on the ground that the order dated 21.9.2011 was passed after hearing both the sides. 4. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner, herein, has filed Original Application No. 1147 of 1996 (Mohd. Zahoor v. Union of India) for payment of arrears of pension to the tune of Rs. 5,80,262/-. The said original application was disposed of vide order dated 31.5.1999 with the following directions : (i) Respondents are directed to grant benefits to the applicant from the due date under the pension scheme. (ii) Respondents are directed to make the payment of arrears under pension scheme to the applicant after adjusting the benefits received by the applicant under the SRPF Rules within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Both parties are not entitled for any interest on payments. 5. It appears, the respondents, herein, have not complied with the order of the Tribunal dated 31.5.1999, the petitioner, herein, filed Contempt Application No. 134 of 2006 (Mohd. Jahoor (since deceased) v. Sri D.K.Dutta, Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Union of India and others). In the contempt proceeding, learned counsel appearing for the Railway Department has made a statement before the Tribunal that an amount of Rs. 5,80,262/- is to be paid to the legal heirs of Mohd. Jahoor, who has passed away,on the production of the succession certificate. Considering the same, the contempt proceeding was dropped with the observation to pay the aforesaid amount to the legal heirs after filing of the succession certificate. The aforesaid order was passed on 30.10.2007. 5,80,262/- is to be paid to the legal heirs of Mohd. Jahoor, who has passed away,on the production of the succession certificate. Considering the same, the contempt proceeding was dropped with the observation to pay the aforesaid amount to the legal heirs after filing of the succession certificate. The aforesaid order was passed on 30.10.2007. After dropping of the contempt proceeding, the respondents have not paid the amount, therefore the petitioner, herein, has filed another O.A. No. 838 of 2010 (Sibte Hasan v. Union of India and others) for redressal of his grievance. Before the Tribunal, Sri P.Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents has made a statement that the payment is being arranged and that shall be paid within a period of one month. Considering the same, proceeding of O.A. was closed on 11th November, 2010 with the liberty to revive the same, if there subsists any grievance or in case the payment is not received within one month. The respondents did not comply with the order of the Tribunal dated 11th November, 2010. 6. Aggrieved petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 56 of 2011. In the said contempt application, notices were issued and on one date, learned counsel appearing for the Railways has given a cheque worth Rs. 5,23,736/- to the counsel appearing in the contempt application. After receiving the same, without verifying the facts, learned counsel for the applicant has admitted that the order of the Tribunal has been complied with and in that eventuality, the contempt proceeding was dropped and notices were discharged vide order dated 21.9.2011. Later on it transpired that entire admitted amount to the tune of Rs. 5,80,262/- has not been paid and instead of that, only an amount of Rs. 5,23,736/- has been paid. 7. Considering the same, the petitioner, herein, has filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 21.9.2011 in Contempt Application No. 56 of 2011. The said application has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 2.11.2011 on the ground that the order dated 21.9.2011 was passed after hearing both the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the recall application on the assumption that the order was passed after hearing both the parties but the facts remains that the amount of Rs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the recall application on the assumption that the order was passed after hearing both the parties but the facts remains that the amount of Rs. 5,80,262/- was determined by the department itself and on that basis, Sri Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents has made statement that the petitioner’outstanding dues is of Rs. 5,80,262/- and that shall be paid. Admittedly before the Tribunal, a cheque offered to the petitioner was of Rs. 5,23,736/-, therefore non-payment of the admitted amount is apparent on the face of record. Sri Srivastava has submited that there was no ambiguity regarding non-payment of the total amount, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have decided the recall application on merit instead of dismissing the same on the ground that the order dated 21.9.2011 was passed after hearing both the sides. 9. There may be substance in the submissions of Sri Srivastava but here the question would be as to whether against an order dropping the contempt proceeding, matter can be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not, Sri Bharti, learned counsel for the respondents, taking shelter of Division Bench Judgment of Culcutta High Court in Manju Banerjee v. Debabrata Pal, 2006 (1) WBLR (Cal) 147, has submitted that against an order dismissing the contempt application, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 10. The Apex Court, in the case of Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal and others, (2015) 12 SCC 514 , taking note of the judgment of Manju Banerjee’s case (supra), has held that the law laid down by the Culcutta High Court in Manju Banerjee’s case is not correct law in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261 . The Apex Court has further held that an order dismissing the contempt application be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein under : 8. The Apex Court has further held that an order dismissing the contempt application be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein under : 8. On a careful consideration of judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Manju Banerjee (supra) which has been followed in the impugned order, we are unable to agree with the view that writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the Tribunal refuses to initiate a contempt proceeding. Such inference has been drawn by the Division Bench on the basis of some judgments of this Court such as in the case of D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 . In those cases the order refusing to initiate proceeding had been passed by the High Court and not by a tribunal and, therefore, this Court observed that in a fit and proper case the aggrieved person who informed the Court of the alleged act of contempt can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Obviously in those cases there could be no occasion to observe that the aggrieved person can also approach the High Court under Article 226/227. The submission that because of similar powers of contempt vested in the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act of 1997, the Tribunal ceases to be inferior to the High Court for exercise of writ jurisdiction is devoid of any substance because it ignores that High Courts have constitutional status and are vested with extraordinary writ jurisdiction whereas the Tribunal is only a creature of statute. Hence, in our considered view, in the case of Manju Banjerjee (supra) the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court does not lay down the law correctly that when the tribunal refuses to initiate contempt proceeding, the aggrieved person has remedy only under Article 136 and not under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 11. The same view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ritu Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (4) UPLBEC 3364 . 12. 11. The same view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ritu Maheshwari v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (4) UPLBEC 3364 . 12. Here in this case, the contempt proceeding has been dropped on the assumption that the order passed by the Tribunal has been complied with, which, later on, transpired that the order has not been fully complied with as the entire payment has not been made. Therefore, we find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy (supra). 13. Here the question would be as to what relief can be granted to the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of this case when the petitioner has challenged the order by which the application seeking recall of the order dated 21.9.2011 has been dismissed on the ground that the aforesaid order was passed after hearing both the parties. 14. We have observed herein above that the amount admitted before the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 5,80,262/- while deciding the Contempt Application No. 134 of 2006 has not been denied by the respondents. What has been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents is that before the Tribunal, on the basis of wrong calculation, statement was made regarding payment of Rs. 5,80,262/. Had it been so, remedy for the respondents was to seek modification of the order dated 30.10.2007 passed in Contempt Application No. 134 of 2006 and this plea cannot be taken here before this Court. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, normally, we would here set aside the order dated 2.11.2011 rejecting the recall application by remitting the matter before the Tribunal to decide the recall application on merit but considering the fact that the matter is being litigated for a quite long time, and the petitioner is the heir of late Mohd. Zahoor who died after retirement, therefore we are not remitting the matter before the Tribunal and under the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s recall application. 16. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 2.11.2011 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s recall application is quashed. 16. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 2.11.2011 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s recall application is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay remaining amount to the petitioner within a period of three months alongwith 6% interest from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case, the respondents choose to seek modification of the order dated 30.10.2007 passed in Contempt Application No. 134 of 2006 and in case, order is modified, in that eventuality it will be open for the respondents to recover paid amount in accordance with law.