| CAT cracks whip on health dept, sets 8-week deadline with Rs 1 lakh cost | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 10: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, has directed the Directorate of Health Services Kashmir to comply with the remaining directions of a 2003 civil court decree in favour of Iqbal Ahmad Baqal within eight weeks, warning that failure to do so will invite costs of Rs 1 lakh.
The order was passed by Ms. Justice Ritu Tagore, Member (Judicial), in TA No. 387/2022. The applicant was represented by Senior Advocate N.A. Beigh with Advocate Mohammad Murshid Rashid, while Deputy Advocate General Syed Musaib appeared for the respondents.
The Tribunal observed that the decree dated June 5, 2003 had attained finality after the respondents' appeal, revision, writ petition, restoration application and RSA proceedings failed before different forums. It noted that despite repeated judicial pronouncements spanning over two decades, the decree had not been fully implemented.
The case related to the applicant's claim for salary and consequential benefits from August 1998 onwards. The CAT held that merely permitting the applicant to resume duties could not be treated as complete compliance of the decree, particularly when the directions regarding release of salary and determination of the intervening period remained unresolved.
The Tribunal directed the respondents to release the applicant's salary from August 1998 onwards in terms of the decree, hold and conclude an inquiry regarding his period of absence after giving him proper opportunity of participation and hearing, and thereafter pass a reasoned order determining his entitlement to salary and other service benefits, if any.
The CAT directed that the entire exercise be completed within eight weeks from the date the order is made available to the respondents. It further made clear that if the directions are not complied with within the stipulated period, the respondents shall be liable to pay costs of Rs 1 lakh to the applicant.
The Tribunal, however, clarified that it had neither enlarged nor modified the 2003 decree and that the proceedings were confined only to enforcement of the decree within its lawful scope.
(JNF) |
|
