The Court emphasized that the contempt petition was not barred by limitation and that the alleged compliance order did not nullify the substantive order of the Tribunal.

Anil Kumar, J.

1. The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 27th January, 2009 passed in CP No. 456/2008 in OA No. 73/2004 discharging the contempt notice and affording another opportunity to the Petitioners to implement the order dated 29th November, 2004 passed in OA No. 73/2004, wherein the Petitioners were directed to reckon the training period as eligible period for the benefits under ACP Scheme and to pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months. The order of the Tribunal has primarily been challenged on behalf of the Petitioners on the grounds, which were enumerated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Sinha, during the arguments on 5th September, 2011. The pleas raised on behalf of the Petitioners are as under:

(i) The Tribunal erred in taking cognizance and initiating the contempt for non-compliance of the order dated 24th November, 2004, which was four years old in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(ii) Correctness of implementation of the said order or otherwise cannot be considered and re-agitated in contempt proceedings, if at all, as this amounts to fresh cause of action and the person aggrieved has other cause of action.

(iii) The Department has implemented the aforesaid order in terms of policy vide letter dated 11th December, 2007, (page 89), and if at all, the Respondents were aggrieved, the cause of action for them was to file a fresh petition not the contempt petition.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the Respondents had filed an original application seeking the quashing of the order dated 25th August, 2003 as well as a declaration that the action of the Petitioners in denying the arrears of pay to the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to further direct the Petitioners to treat the revised dates of holding the each grade as the actual date of holding the each grade for all purposes and consequently to grant the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) along with the actual arrears which had been denied in pursuance of the order dated 25th August, 2003.

3. The Respondents had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 528/1993, seeking quashing of the seniority list and had claimed reckoning of period of training as Trainees (Type-B) for purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by an order dated 15th February, 1999. The Tribunal, in its order dated 15th February, 1999, had held as under:

We, therefore, hold that the Respondents shall consider the period of training also in reckoning seniority. We further direct the Respondents to apply such of the principles as would be suitable to the Respondents-department from the orders of the Ministry of Personnel & Training in OM No. 22011/7/86-Estt. (D) dated 3.7.1986, to be found in Swamy's Complete Manual on "Establishment and Administration" for Central Government Offices. Fifth Edition-1996 at page 494 onwards. The Ministry of Personnel had spelt out with illustrations as to how to work out the seniority of direct recruits and promotees. The Respondents shall carefully consider and redefine the principle on which seniority be based between the applicants and the promotees. After laying down the principle, a draft seniority list be circulated giving three weeks time to the contending groups to state their objections and thereafter finalise the seniority list. The whole exercise should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The O.A. is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

4. Since the seniority had been granted to the Respondents, they further sought arrears as a consequence of the seniority and ante-dating of their promotion and also sought that the ante-dated promotion be treated as deemed date for qualifying the trade test. For the Assured Career Progression, it was contended that since, the seniority was accorded after ta