Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
1. Heard Shri S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present Contempt Petition is filed against non-compliance of the order dated 22.05.2024 passed in OA No. 537 of 2024. In OA No. 537 of 2024, while allowing the OA, the following directions were given to the respondents:-
“13. For the foregoing reasons, the instant OA is allowed at the admission stage itself. Respondents are hereby directed to issue one notional increment to the applicants and further issue revised PPO(s) in this regard. However, arrear payment of only three years preceding to the date of filing of this original application i.e. 20.05.2024 shall be made to the applicants @ 6% simple interest per annum. The said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order without fail, otherwise the applicant shall be entitled for 6% Simple Interest per annum from the date of filing of present OA i.e. 20.05.2024”.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed OA No. 537/2024 seeking grant of one notional increment as they had completed one full year of service from the date of the previous increment but were denied the benefit for the last year of service. Their claim was supported by the law laid down in P. Ayyamperumal and Director (Admn. & HR) KPTCL vs. C.P. Mundinamani reported in (2023) SCC online S.C. 401 (Civil Appeal No.(s) 2471/2023 decided on 11.04.2023). The OA was allowed by this Tribunal on 22.05.2024, and the directions have already been reproduced above.
4. The respondents have filed three compliance affidavits pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 22.05.2024. In their latest compliance affidavit dated 30.10.2025, the respondents have stated that one notional increment has been granted, arrears have been paid and revised PPOs have been issued to all eligible applicants except applicant Nos. 1, 8, and 12, who were found ineligible on examination. It is further stated that interest has not been granted because the Tribunal’s order does not provide for payment of interest except in case of delay beyond the stipulated period.
5. We have heard and considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
6. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly emphasizes that ingredients of willful disobedience must be there before anyone can be charged for contempt of a civil nature. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 12 SCC 770 has observed that “contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a willful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out.” This observation finds further force in the order delivered in the matter of Ahmad Ali. Vs. Supdt., District Jail, 1986 Supp SCC 556 : AIR 1987 SC 1491 wherein it has been observed that “mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and although disobedience might have been established, absence of willful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct”.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. GanpatDuggar and others AIR 1997 Supreme Court 113 has held that in compliance of the order of the Court, the preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may not be in conformity with the directions, but that would be a fresh cause of action to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. It is also held that the same cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order.
8. In the case of Shail Raj Kishore Vs. Secretary, Education basic, U.P. Lucknow and others 2004 (3) AWC 2444 the Hon’ble court has held as under:-
"If the applicants feel that the order passed by the opposite party is not in accordance to the intent or desire of the Court or otherwise illegal and arbitrary, the same can only be challenged before the appropriate forum. In various cases, Apex Court has held that the Contempt Court cannot go into the merit of the order. Various grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicant to submit that the order is bad in law required consideration and adjudication, which can only be done by the appropriate Court and not by this Court."
9. From the record, it is clear that the respondents have taken steps to comply with the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No. 537/2024. They have granted one notional increment, paid arrears for the permissible period and issued revised PPOs to all applicants found eligible. The denial of benefit to applicant Nos. 1, 8 and 12 has been explained on the ground that they were not eligible upon examination. Whether such rejection is right or wrong is a matter which falls outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction and can be questioned by the concerned petitioners through appropriate legal proceedings.
10. Regarding the non-payment of interest, the respondents have pointed out that interest was payable only in case of non-compliance beyond the time limit of three months as prescribed in the order dated 22.05.2024. The respondents have stated that the notional increment and revised PPOs were issued within the stipulated time and therefore, no liability to pay interest has arisen. The question whether the respondents were required to pay interest or not touches upon the merits of the compliance order and cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings.
11. The legal position regarding contempt jurisdiction is well-settled. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requires that willful and deliberate disobedience must be proved before any person can be held guilty. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta (supra) and Ahmad Ali (supra) make it clear that even if there is some deficiency or error in compliance, unless such disobedience is intentional and conscious, contempt cannot be made out.
12. The law laid down in J.S. Parihar (supra) further clarifies that if the authority has taken some decision while complying with the Court’s order, but the correctness of such decision is disputed, the remedy is to challenge that decision independently. The Contempt Court cannot examine the correctness or legality of such decision as if sitting in appeal. Similarly, in Shail Raj Kishore (supra), it has been held that where the petitioners feel that the compliance action is not in accordance with the Court’s intent, they must approach the appropriate forum; the Contempt Court cannot go into the merits of such alleged illegality.
13. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the respondents have intentionally or deliberately disobeyed the directions of this Tribunal. On the contrary, they have filed successive compliance affidavits and have substantially complied with the order dated 22.05.2024. Any grievance relating to the rejection of some petitioners’ claim or non-payment of interest due to interpretation of the order cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings and must be agitated before the appropriate forum.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that no case of willful disobedience is made out. Accordingly, proceedings of the present Contempt Petition is closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy, if so advised, in accordance with law. All associated MAs are disposed of.
