Top MoD official gets 2nd summons in a week for contempt

Holding the top functionary of the Department of Ex-servicemen’s Welfare in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) “guilty” of contempt for failing to execute orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) even seven years after they were passed, the AFT’s Chandigarh Bench has directed his personal appearance in court on May 9 for further proceedings on the quantum of sentence.

This is the second time in a week that the same officer, posted as Secretary, Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare (DESW) in the Ministry of Defence, has been held guilty for “wilful disobedience” of orders passed by the court. A similar order was passed by the Chandigarh Bench on April 30.

In 2018, the AFT had allowed the petition of Naik Kulwant Singh, seeking enhancement of the disability element from 20 percent to 50 percent for the war injury pension sanctioned to him for a gunshot wound.

The Bench observed that a period of almost seven years has elapsed since the order and a writ petition in this regard was also dismissed. Besides, a special leave petition (SLP) has not been filed yet.

“The maximum time for implementation of the order, as per the instructions issued by the contemnor himself is 90 days, whereas a writ petition is to be filed within 120 days. These timelines have been blatantly violated and yet the contemnor proposes to approach the Supreme Court. This amounts to wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Regional Bench as well as the Supreme Court,” the Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal and Air Marshal Manvendra Singh said in their order of May 2.

Stating that the attempt of the respondents is only to delay the matter, the Bench added that the course of action being adopted is only resulting in expenses on mindless litigation and the same funds would be better utilised by giving relief to the petitioner.

Terming the conduct of the respondents as “contumacious”, the Bench said that they were not prepared to think with an open mind even though they were guided by the best legal brains in the country.

Rejecting the argument that the DESW is not responsible for implementing court orders as instructions issued by the defence ministry states that disability pension is within the sphere of responsibility of the department, the Bench held that a department which issues directions and policies is also required to monitor the implementation of the same and the department’s head is responsible for its functioning.