The Court ruled that compliance with a Tribunal's order by passing a speaking order negates grounds for contempt, even if one applicant is excluded from benefits.

ORDER :

[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the first respondent in C.A.310/00086/2018 in O.A./1270/2017 dated 30.11.2023, quash the same as illegal.

The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 30.11.2023 passed in CA.No.310/00086/2018 in O.A.No.1270 of 2017.

2. The Union of India is the petitioner before this Court. In nutshell, the respondents filed O.A.No.1270 of 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents therein to regularise the services of the applicants in Group D posts on par with their colleagues with all attended and consequential benefits in accordance with the judgment in O.A.No.758 and 777 of 2004 and other cases by extending their benefits thereof. The Tribunal disposed of the original application with the following directions:

“5. Considering the limited submission of the learned counsel for the applicants, I deem it appropriate and direct the applicant to submit a detailed representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents shall consider the representation of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order in the light of the judgments delivered by this Tribunal in OA.No.777/2024, 1590/2011, O.A.No.959/2013 and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.29298 of 2013 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.

6. Shri V.Chandrasekhar (R-1) and Dr.S.Seethalakshmi (R2-5) take notice for the respondents.

7. The OA is disposed of as above at the admission stage.”

3. Pursuant to the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal respondents submitted a representation seeking regularisation of their respective services. The appellants considered the same and passed an order granting regularisation to all the respondents expect one Mr.K.Santhanam found ineligible for grant of said service benefit. Admittedly, compliance affidavit was filed in Contempt Petition No.86 of 2018 by the appellants. In the said compliance affidavit following details are provided:

4. As far as Mr.K.Santhanam is concerned his services were not regularised on the ground that he was granted temporary status on 01.09.2002 (after 29.04.2002), he is not covered under the Scheme of 1993. Also he is not covered under the “Part-Time Casual Labourers Regularisation Scheme of CBIC 2020”.

5. After the petitioners filed a compliance affidavit, the Central Administrative Tribunal passed an impugned order on November 30, 2023, in the contempt application. The order states that “while regularizing the services of applicants 1 to 8 in the original application, denying the same benefits to the 9th applicant, Mr. K. Santhanam, was improper”.

6. Accordingly, the Tribunal d