Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 118 (MEG)

Union of India v. Uma Shankar Shukla

2022-05-12

SANJIB BANERJEE, W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The Union questions the propriety of an order dated September 27, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati on the respondent's petition before the Tribunal. There is an ancillary challenge to a subsequent order of the Tribunal dated February 4, 2020 passed on a review petition filed by the Union. It appears that the present proceedings have been prompted by contempt notices or contempt applications filed before the Tribunal. 2. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter in any great detail, in view of the order proposed to be made. It may only be noticed that the present challenge to the order dated September 27, 2016 could not have been made, particularly since the Union had acted on the basis of the order dated September 27, 2016 and had considered the case of the respondent and informed the respondent of such consideration by a letter dated February 16, 2018, issued long before the institution of the present petition. 3. It is elementary that once an order is acted upon, it will not be open to the party acting in accordance therewith to question the propriety of the order. The fact that contempt notices or applications may have been issued or filed would make no difference. 4. Indeed, it may be noticed that the effective direction in the order dated September 27, 2016 was for the respondent's 'case (to) be considered in the neighbouring division' by the employer. For good or bad, the employer considered the matter and communicated the result of the consideration by the letter dated February 16, 2018. As to whether the consideration was proper or not or as to whether relevant considerations were taken into account in such regard, need not be gone into in the present proceedings. All that is evident is that the Union did consider the case of the respondent herein and did not deem the respondent appropriate to be promoted to the relevant post. Once such consideration took place and the result thereof was communicated, there may not be any contempt; though the decision could still have been assailed in accordance with law. 5. All that is evident is that the Union did consider the case of the respondent herein and did not deem the respondent appropriate to be promoted to the relevant post. Once such consideration took place and the result thereof was communicated, there may not be any contempt; though the decision could still have been assailed in accordance with law. 5. That a review petition was filed by the Union herein and has been dismissed by a non-speaking order would make no difference since, in course of deciding the review, the validity of the letter dated February 16, 2018 could not have been taken into account. 6. Accordingly, WP(C) No. 332 of 2020 is disposed of by recording that the Union has already acted on the basis of the order which is sought to be challenged herein; thus, rendering the challenge meaningless. However, the merits of the Union's consideration of the matter are not gone into and the respondent is left free to challenge the same in accordance with law, without resorting to proceedings in contempt. If a challenge in such regard is carried to the Tribunal within the next eight weeks by the respondent herein, the Union will not urge the ground of delay and will facilitate the consideration of the matter on merits. 7. It is also recorded that the fundamental premise of the Union's case is that erroneous information was furnished by its official following an RTI query by the respondent herein. Such aspect of the matter is referred to in the letter dated February 16, 2018. 8. It is made clear that the observations herein should not prejudice either side in course of any future proceedings. 9. MC (WPC) No. 172 of 2020 is disposed of. 10. There will be no order as to costs.