Harbansh Singh vs Dr. N Zaheer Ahmad on 26 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW

CONTEMPT PETITION No. 84 of 2024 in ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00219 of 2012 Dated, this 26th day of October, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Harbansh Singh, aged about 66 years, son of Late Shri Nanhku Singh, resident of A-1/F, Sector-F, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.

……Applicant

By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar

VERSUS

Dr. N. Zaheer Ahmad, Director General, Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, 61-65, Industrial Area, Opposite D-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi.

…..Proposed Contemnor By Advocate: Shri Shyam Lal Mishra

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the proposed contemnor and perused the records.

2. This Contempt Petition has been preferred by the applicant alleging willful disobedience of judgment and order dated 01.03.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 219 of 2012.

3. The operative part of the judgment and order dated 01.03.2024 of this Tribunal in OA No. 219 of 2012 is extracted below: “7.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, the impugned O.M. dated 24.04.2012 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh in light of the averments made in this OA and particularly with reference to the case of Dr. Sagheer Ahmad Siddiqui, byelaws 44 and 47 of CCRUM and the procedure laid down in O.M. dated 02.12.1997, and decide the case by way of a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” (emphasis supplied)

4. The proposed contemnor, vide M.A. No. 3172 of 2024 dated 23.12.2024, filed speaking order dated 06.08.2024 passed in compliance of this Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 01.03.2024.

5. The applicant, vide affidavit dated 22.01.2025 has objected to the manner of compliance averring that the proposed contemnor has rejected his case without any fresh consideration.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in regard to the subject matter of contempt in Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Ors vs P Ravi Kumar & Ors 2024 INSC 957: “1.10 In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. It means knowingly- intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable.”

7. Perusal of the speaking order dated 06.08.2024 reveals that the applicant’s case has been rejected in the following manner: “5. Whereas the cases of Shri Harbansh Singh and Dr. Sageer Ahmad Siddiqui are not similar, as in the case of Dr. Sagheer Ahmad Siddiqui, the judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 6795 of 2001, was examined by Deptt of ISM&H, in consultation with Deptt. of Expenditure and it was conveyed vide order dated 11.12.2003 to grant upgradation of pay scale of Assistant Research Officers who were Medical Officers, with effect from the date of issue of the said order. Further in the case of Shri Harbansh Singh the matter for extension of Part „B‟ of 5th CPC was examined in consultation with Deptt. of Ayush and the same was not agreed to as conveyed vide letter dated 16.07.2004. Moreover, two cases cannot be equated as Dr. Sagheer Ahamad Siddiqui was a Medical Officer having professional degree, while Shri Harbansh Singh was merely a B. Sc. (Agriculture).

6. Whereas, the provisions contained in byelaws 44 and 47 of CCRUM is concerned, the scales of pay recommended by fifth CPC in Part ‘A’ of First Schedule have been implemented in the case of CCRUM employees in accordance with OM dated 02.12.1997, which would cover the provisions of byelaws 44 of CCURM. However, as stated above, Part ‘B’ XXII(b) of CCS(RP) Rules 1997, was not automatically applicable to employees of autonomous bodies and subject to approval of the Govt. Therefore, the provisions of Byelaws 47 cannot be applied in this case without approval of the Govt.

7. Now, therefore, in view of the details explained above, it is conveyed that the request of Shri Harbansh Singh, Field Technician (Retd.) for extension of benefits of Part „B‟ XXII(b) of CC(RP) Rules, 1997 cannot be agreed to.”

8. It is noted that the speaking order dated 06.08.2024 encompasses reference to the case of Dr. Sagheer Ahmad Siddiqui, byelaws 44 and 47 of CCRUM and the procedure laid down in O.M. dated 02.12.1997 and so it cannot be said that there has been willful disobedience of this Tribunals’ judgment and order dated 01.03.2024 in OA No. 219 of 2012.

9. In view of the foregoing, this Contempt Petition is closed and the notices to the proposed contemnors are discharged.

10. However, if the applicant is aggrieved with the rejection of his case vide speaking order 01.03.2024, he shall have the liberty to agitate the same in fresh OA.

(Pankaj Kumar)

(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A)

Member (J)

Vidya

Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.10.27 17:07:50 +05'30'