Dismay over Defiance | CAT asks Chief Secretary to take note

Srinagar, Mar 13:  The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar Wednesday expressed its dismay over how the Transport Department had dealt with its orders related to the release of wages earned by a consolidated worker since 2007, even as it asked the Chief Secretary to take note of it with an appropriate follow-up.

“Before parting, we would like to place on record our deep dismay at the way the court's orders have been dealt with in the instant case for which we would like to request the Chief Secretary of J&K to take note and for appropriate follow-up,” a bench comprising Member (J) M S Latif and Member (A) Prasant Kumar said in its order.

The court said this while taking on record a communication dated March 4, 2024, produced by the counsel representing the Transport Department, which indicated that an amount of Rs 12.36 lakh had been released, processed, and forwarded to the concerned District Treasury Budgam for disbursement in the bank accounts of the concerned consolidated workers.

The bench said it was satisfied that the respondents (authorities) have come up with the communication dated March 4, 2024.

“At the same time we are at pains and would express our dismay and anguish, the way the court orders are being treated by the officials,” the bench said.

The court expressed anguish for what it termed as disregard by the authorities for its orders.

“We would express our appreciation for the respondent RTO Kashmir who at least caused his presence through virtual mode in compliance to the earlier direction but at the same time, we would express our deep regret and anguish on the non-compliance by the Transport Commissioner as well as the Administrative Secretary, Transport, J&K, for having shown absolute disregard to the orders passed by this court,” it said.

“We never meant to have them here as they are more required in public duties and to mitigate the sufferings but what was expected of such brilliant officers, was respect for the rule of law,” the court said. “They could have at least moved a motion for seeking their exemption rather than to have thrown the court orders in the otherwise filled dustbins under their tables.”

The bench said that this court was not powerless in terms of Section 17 of the CAT Act of 1985, Punish for Contempt as this court has the same powers as have been vested with the High Court and also as contained under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1971.

“In addition, this court is vested with the powers under Contempt of Courts (CAT Act Rules 1992),” the court said.

It observed that it was conscious that such provisions of the statute were to be invoked very sparingly but that does not mean that courts do not have the power to punish. “We would again make it clear and loud that courts are temples of Justice and at the same time, the rule of law deserves respect. Courts are only to uphold the rule of law,” the court said. “The courts have no ego other than to do their duty to uphold and protect the majesty of law.”

It observed that given the communication dated March 4, 2024, its order dated July 25, 2023, “stands complied with”.

“However, the petitioners are free to move a fresh M A in case the amount so deposited is not as per their calculations,” the court said and listed the main transfer application for consideration on April 17.