HC Contempt notices to Centre, AIIMS Delhi for For Non-Payment Of Cost of Rs 25,000
Advertisement
Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court has issued notices to Union Health Secretary Preeti Sudan and AIIMS Delhi Director Randeep Guleria on a contempt petition filed by Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi in a case involving him.
It has asked them to file their reply before July 26, asking why they should not be punished for contempt of court, according to the official orders.
In its order, the court had termed as "vindictive" the attitude of the central government and imposed on it a cost of Rs. 25,000.
Read Also: AIIMS Whistleblower: Uttarakhand HC notice to CAT Chairman in Corruption case
The court was hearing Chaturvedi's petition against an order passed by chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi, on July 27, 2018.
The CAT chairman had stayed the proceedings of circuit bench of the tribunal in Nainital for a period of six weeks in the matter related to adverse entries into appraisal report of Chaturvedi, for financial year 2015-16, when he was serving in AIIMS on central deputation.
Chaturvedi, a 2002 batch officer of IFS, had sought quashing of orders of the CAT chairman and directions to Nainital bench of the tribunal to allow its proceedings.
However, the AIIMS challenged this order of high court before the Supreme Court in October last year. On February 1, this year, the apex court not only upheld the orders of the high court but also the additional cost of Rs 25,000.
Respondents have always acted with unprecedented haste while passing any illegal order or causing injury to petitioner, whether it be awarding zero grading in 48 hours (for which statutory instructions provide a period of 3 months) or removal of petitioner from post of CVO, to protect influential corrupt accused, in which around 20 signatures were recorded in just 24 hours. However, when it comes to compliance of lawful directions of courts in favour of petitioner, they are extremely slow/reluctant, Chaturvedi's plea read.
It has asked them to file their reply before July 26, asking why they should not be punished for contempt of court, according to the official orders.
The matter relates to an order passed by the high court on August 21, last year while hearing the case of Chaturvedi.
In its order, the court had termed as "vindictive" the attitude of the central government and imposed on it a cost of Rs. 25,000.
Read Also: AIIMS Whistleblower: Uttarakhand HC notice to CAT Chairman in Corruption case
The court was hearing Chaturvedi's petition against an order passed by chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi, on July 27, 2018.
The CAT chairman had stayed the proceedings of circuit bench of the tribunal in Nainital for a period of six weeks in the matter related to adverse entries into appraisal report of Chaturvedi, for financial year 2015-16, when he was serving in AIIMS on central deputation.
Chaturvedi, a 2002 batch officer of IFS, had sought quashing of orders of the CAT chairman and directions to Nainital bench of the tribunal to allow its proceedings.
However, the AIIMS challenged this order of high court before the Supreme Court in October last year. On February 1, this year, the apex court not only upheld the orders of the high court but also the additional cost of Rs 25,000.
Respondents have always acted with unprecedented haste while passing any illegal order or causing injury to petitioner, whether it be awarding zero grading in 48 hours (for which statutory instructions provide a period of 3 months) or removal of petitioner from post of CVO, to protect influential corrupt accused, in which around 20 signatures were recorded in just 24 hours. However, when it comes to compliance of lawful directions of courts in favour of petitioner, they are extremely slow/reluctant, Chaturvedi's plea read.
Read Also:CAT chief decides to not hear Sanjiv Chaturvedi's AIIMS appraisal report matter
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.