Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The petitioners, who were initially appointed as Short Term Medical Officers (STMOs) and subsequently regularised as Assistant Medical Officers (AMOs) pursuant to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.05.2022, filed a contempt petition before the Tribunal alleging non-compliance with that order. The Tribunal closed the contempt proceedings vide order dated 20.10.2023, holding that substantial compliance had been made by the respondents through the regularisation order dated 19.04.2023, and that there was no wilful disobedience.

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order dated 20.10.2023 and seeking directions for notional seniority from the date of initial appointment, amendment of the seniority list, and grant of notional promotions up to the level of Chief Medical Officer. A preliminary objection was raised by the Standing Counsel as to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court examined the relevant provisions of Article 323A of the Constitution of India, Sections 14 and 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Sections 11, 12 and 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to determine whether a writ petition before the High Court is maintainable against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.

Catchwords: Short Term Medical Officers regularisation Assistant Medical Officers notional seniority contempt of courts Central Administrative Tribunal maintainability of writ petition Article 226 Administrative Tribunals Act Contempt of Courts Act wilful disobedience substantial compliance