Central Administrative Tribunal
SMT JYOTI CHOUREY vs VIJAY SINGH on 14 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH Jabalpur
Contempt Petition No. 200/51/2026 (in Original Application No.200/01092/2023)
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 14th day of October, 2026
HON’BLE SHRI RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MS MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Smt. Jyoti Chourey, W/o Shri Kiran Chourey, D/o Laxmi Narayan Malliya, age 37 years, R/o Village Biaora, Post Power Kheda, District- Narmadapuram (M.P.) 461111
-Applicant (By advocate- Shri A B Tiwari) V e r s u s Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Divisional Officer, West Central Railway, Bhopal (M.P.) 462024
- Respondents (By Advocate – Shri D S Baghel) O R D E R(ORAL)
By Mallika Arya, AM:- This C.P. has been filed by the applicant alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 10.12.2025 passed in O.A./1092/2023 (Annexure CP/1).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the respondents vide order dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure CP/3), have rejected the claim of the
VISHAL KUSHWAH
applicant for appointment on the ground that maximum age limit for consideration of appointment is 32 years and as on 01.07.2019, the applicant’s age was 33 years, 11 months and 27 days. He submitted that applicant has applied for appointment under the OBC category and as per the order of WCR dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure CR/1), there is an exemption of three years for appointment under the OBC category. Hence, the case of the applicant has been wrongly rejected by the respondents.
3. On perusal of our order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure C/1) there was a limited direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant and if she is otherwise found eligible, issue necessary order in this regard within a period of three months…..
4. In their compliance report, the respondents have annexed the copy of the order dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure CP/3) passed in compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal thereby rejecting the claim of the applicant. On perusal of the said order, it is observed that the case of the applicant has not been rejected solely on the ground of age limit, it has also been rejected on rehabilitation ground and it has been stated that the acquired land i.e. 0.027 hectare does not impact the livelihood of the applicant
VISHAL KUSHWAH
and he cannot be considered as displaced person. The acquired land is very small against which the applicant can claim appointment.
5. The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Union of India and others vs Ashish Chaubey and Others, M.P. No. 3967 of 2025 dated 13.11.2025 has observed as follows: “the owner does not become a landless person when the acquired land is very small.”
6. Thus, in view of the compliance report filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that our order dated 10.12.2025 (supra) has been complied with.
7. In case the applicant feels aggrieved, he is at liberty to approach this Tribunal by way of separate proceedings.
8. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed with the above liberty. Contemnors are discharged from the notice of contempt.
(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member
Judicial Member vk/-
VISHAL KUSHWAH