AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As Per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member Judicial
Heard the parties.
By way of the present CP, the applicant is alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2026 passed in OA No 2570/2025, whereby direction was issued to the respondents to pass appropriate orders regarding the consideration of the case of the applicant and in the event the applicant is found fit and is granted promotion on the basis of merit and eligibility under the applicant recruitment rules, he shall be entitled arising therefrom in accordance with law.
The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submits that there is no willful disobedience of the order the order 21.07.2026 passed in OA No 2570/2025 and same been duly complied with by the respondents vide speaking order dated 31.07.2026 and same has been filed by the applicant himself in the paper book. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate again substantive rights and nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present CP.
Heard. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
The short issue regarding that arises for our consideration is as to “whether there is willful disobedience of order dated 21.07.2026 passed in OA No 2570/2025.
In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties, relevant para 8, 9 10, 11 & 12 of the order dated 21.07.2026 passed in OA No 2570/2025 are extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“8.Accordingly, the respondents are directed to examine the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of LDC, strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, particularly the criteria relating to seniority-cum-suitability, as applicable to the applicant.
9.Since the applicant has already approached this Tribunal and has himself submitted that appropriate orders regarding his consideration may be passed before his date of superannuation, i.e., 31.07.2026 the respondents shall undertake the aforesaid exercise on or before the date of retirement of the applicant.
10.Needless to say, in the event the applicant is found fit and is granted promotion on the basis of his merit and eligibility under the applicable Recruitment Rules, he shall be entitled arising therefrom in accordance with law.
11.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably before the date of superannuation of the applicant. In the event , the promotional order(s) are passed either on 31.7.2026 or at later date, the applicant shall only be entitled to notional benefits only.
12.With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of.”
As evident from order dated 21.07.2026 in OA No 2570/2025, the Tribunal considered the case of the applicant, for consideration of claim for promotion to the post of LDC under applicable RRs. We have already extracted the operative paragraphs of order dated 21.07.2026.
Vide order dated 21.07.2026, there was specific direction to examine and consider the case of the applicant according to RRs and appropriate orders regarding his consideration may be passed before 31.07.2026.
Respondents have examined the case of the applicant and on consideration of the case for promotion to post of LDC in accordance with applicable RRs and criteria of seniority. The order dated 21.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal has been complied and respondents have issued compliance order dated 31.07.2026 and speaking order dated 31.07.2026. The mandate of the order dated 21.07.2026 in OA No 2570/2025 to “consider” the case for promotion to the post of LDC as per RRs on or before 31.07.2026 has been carried out.
In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties, we deem it proper to refer to relevant provisions of "The Act, 1971" and refer the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The disobedience of the orders of the Court in order to constitute contempt must be willful. The statutory definition in Section 2 (b) of “The Act, 1971”, the essential feature in order to constitute contempt, the disobedience must be willful. The definition of civil-contempt envisaged in sec 2 (b) of The Act, 1971 reads as:
"2.Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a)…………………………………………………………………………………………….
(b)"civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;"
(emphasis supplied)
Case Law
In the case of Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and Others, (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 98, Their Lordships in paragraph 7 held as under:
"7.While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union of India¹. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher court. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside."
[emphasis supplied]
In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 613: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 70. Their Lordships in paragraph 6 held as under:
"6.If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against the rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. Itcannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible."
[emphasis supplied]
We are of the opinion that once there is an order dated 21.07.2026 in OA No 2570/2025 to consider case of the applicant for promotion in accordance with rules. The respondents passed order dated 31.07.2026 and speaking order dated 31.07.2026, based on direction of this Tribunal to examine and pass appropriate orders on consideration on or before 31.07.2026.
There arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The compliance order dated 31.07.2026, may be right or may be wrong but that would be a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum- to applicant to avail opportunity of judicial review.
We cannot consider the action of respondents to be willful disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2026 in OA No 2570/2025.
For all the reasons and in view of the decision taken by the respondents vide speaking order dated 31.07.2026 and the principles enunciated in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the present contempt petition, consequently the same is dismissed and the respondents are discharged with liberty to the applicant to assail the correctness of the compliance order dated 31.07.2026 in accordance with law. No Costs.