Tribunal's contempt jurisdiction does not extend to issuing supplemental orders beyond the original application; compliance with the original order suffices to avoid contempt.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in C.P. No. 19/2023 in O.A. No. 180/00668/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the personal appearance of the petitioner was exempted for the time being, with a clarification that if the order is not implemented before the next posting date, the exemption from personal appearance shall stand revoked.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Original Petition are that the respondent herein filed the Original Application seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To call for the records relating to Annexures A1 to A13, and to declare that the applicants are entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Scale with effect from 01.01.2006 as per A2 and A3 OM;

(ii) To direct the respondents to immediately refix the pay of the applicants with effect from 01.01.2006 in the scale of pay of Rs.9300 –34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600 and to refix the pay, ACP benefits and all other consequential refixations and to draw arrears with 18% penal interest;

(iii) To direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits of fixation of pay and arrears on such re-fixation of pay with 18% penal interest;

(iv) To issue such other appropriate orders or directions this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

(v) To grant the costs of this Original Application”

3. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application vide order dated 10.01.2022, and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

“10. In view of the law laid down by the Tribunal in OAs Nos. 656 of 2012 and 953 of 2012 and the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Union of India & 2 Ors. v. T.M. Thomas in OP (CAT) No. 142 of 2014, we hold that applicants in this OA are also entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and they are also entitled to get their pay re-fixed COURT OF w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in the new scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with all financial upgradations as per law. We also direct the respondents to complete the above exercise within a period of 3 months.

11. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.”

4. The petitioner filed Ext. P7 compliance report, which would reveal that the respondent was granted the first Assured Career Progression (ACP) with effect from 17.01.2006 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-, and the second MACP with effect from 17.01.2014 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the relevant provision leading to the fixation of pay on the first ACP was also extracted.

4.1 Since the respondent objected to the grant of ACP in the same Grade Pay, a more beneficial fixation was carried out, and an additional affidavit (Ext. P9) was filed. As per the revised proposal, the respondent was granted the first MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- with effect from 01.09.2008 and the second MACP with effect from 17.01.2014 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-.

4.2 In view of the merger of the scales of Junior Translator and Senior Translator in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-, and the introduction of MACP with effect from 01.09.2008, the respondent was granted the benefit that was legally permissible.

5. The respondent filed Contempt Petit