AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant Contempt Petition, u/s 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,has been filed by 7 petitioners for non-compliance of the order dated 03.07.2025 passed in O.A. No. 577/2022 whereby the following directions were issued in favour of 211 applicants:
“…..31. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.04.2004, 11.05.2004 and 28.12.2018 passed by the respondents are quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the revised pay scales of the applicants to their respective post with effect from 01.01.1996 along with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears of salary with applicable interest. The respondents shall complete the necessary implementation within a period of three months from the date of this order..”
Subsequently, against the aforesaid order of this Tribunal, Writ-A No. 3237/2026 (Union of India vs Shri Kaushal Kishore Bhaskar and 211 ors) was filed before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, wherein on 30.03.2026, the following directions were issued:
“4.In the meanwhile and till further orders effect and operation of the order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure-1), passed in Original Application No. 577 of 2022, shall remain stayed to the extent of payment of arrears of salary with effect from 01.01.1996 and other emoluments up to 21.04.2004 with applicable interest, however, the petitioners shall notionally enhance the grades of the respondents with effect from 01.01.1996 with the pay re-fixed accordingly and the respondents would be made actual payment including arrears from 21.04.2004.
5.This exercise shall be completed by the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today. However, the entire exercise shall remain subject to the final outcome of the present writ petitions.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that order of this Tribunal followed by the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court has not been complied with till date.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of this Tribunal has already been complied with and in this regard an affidavit of compliance has also been filed on 18.09.2026. In para 3 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under:
“3.That, it is respectfully submitted that, in strict compliance of order and direction passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, pay fixation orders has been issued in respect of all the 07 petitioners of the contempt petition has been issued and payment of arrears has been has been made in 05 cases (petitioner no. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6) and in rest 02 cases (petitioner no. 3 & 7), bill of arrears payment has been sent to the PAO for payment…..”
In response, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed objection/rejoinder affidavit to the affidavit of compliance. In para 5 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under:
“5.That the contents of paras 3 and 4 of the compliance affidavit, in so far as they profess strict compliance of order and directions passed by this Tribunal, are wholly false and misleading, if not a complete fraud and farce on the process of the court and the law of contempt. It is a matter of record that 211 petitioners had joined together in filing O.A. No. 577/2022 that was allowed vide judgment and order dated 03.07.2025 and the directions contained therein covered all 211 applicants and not just 7 of them. Likewise, the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30.03.2026 covered, and applied to all the 211 respondents in Writ-A No. 3237/2026. Needless to say, therefore, compliance of the said orders would mean grant of the benefits under those orders to each and every applicant of the O.A. and not just the few who have informed the Tribunal of the fact of contempt by joining as petitioners in this contempt petition. By means of the para under reply, the respondents have tried to stand the entire law of contempt and compliance of judicial orders on its head by actually asserting, contemptuously enough, that the fruits of the Tribunal's order shall be made available only to those applicants of the O.A. who are parties/petitioners in the contempt petition; as for the rest, the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court would remain just pieces of waste paper. The stand taken by the respondents betrays either total defiance of the majesty and authority of the Tribunal and the High Court with impunity, or total ignorance of the law of contempt. In contempt proceedings, personal relief is neither sought nor given by the Tribunals or courts and the only prayer capable of being considered is for punishing the contemnors which is precisely the case in the instant contempt petition as well. This being the case, irrespective of whether the present contempt petition has been filed by just one or all of the applicants in the Original Application, compliance cannot but mean delivery of the fruits of the judgment to each and every one of the applicants in the O.A. and till that is not done, the order cannot be said to have been complied with. In the present case, the respondents, on their own showing in the affidavit of compliance, have professed compliance (which too is only partial), only in respect of those 7 persons who have filed the instant contempt petition, meaning thereby, that 204 of the remaining applicants in O.A. No. 577/2022 have been left high and dry and callously and contemptuously kept deprived of the benefits duly conferred upon them by the Tribunal only because they have not joined in this contempt petition and yet, paradoxically, the respondents have had the temerity to say in para 4 of their affidavit that "order and direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal has already been complied with."
Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed written submissions reiterating his submissions. He has further relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Niaz Mohammad & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 332, the Supreme Court held that before punishment the Court must be satisfied not merely about disobedience but that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, the Supreme Court explained that wilful disobedience involves conscious, intentional and deliberate conduct and excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or genuinely impossible non-compliance. In Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran, (2014) 3 SCC 373, the Supreme Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised cautiously and that the Court should not travel beyond the explicit directions contained in the order.
On the other hand, on 30.09.2026 learned counsel for the respondents placed before this Tribunal bank transaction details in respect of the petitioners and submitted that all the 7 petitioners in the instant Contempt Petition have been paid and as such the order of this Tribunal has been complied with.
It is pertinent to note that the contempt petition has been filed by only 7 petitioners and the order has been complied in respect of these 7 petitioners. Generally, the aggrieved parties file the contempt petitions. In this case, 7 petitioners have filed the instant Contempt Petition and compliance affidavit has also been specifically filed in respect these 7 petitioners. The petitioners in a contempt petition are expected to raise the issue of non-compliance of any order in respect of themselves only. Therefore, to presume that these 7 petitioners are speaking on behalf of all the applicants of the Original Application will be erroneous. If the 211 applicants could file the Original Application together, they could also have filed contempt petition together if they were aggrieved. Therefore, there has been no wilful disobedience of the order of the Court on the part of respondents in the instant case, which has been complied in respect of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order has been complied with in respect of almost all the applicants in the Original Application and they have not filed any contempt petition before this Tribunal for non-compliance.
In view of above, the proceedings of the instant Contempt Petition stand closed and consigned to record. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.
M.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.