The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of orders passed by the authorities in compliance with the Tribunal's order should be challenged in independent legal proceedings before the Tribunal, not through contempt jurisdiction.

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. This writ petition is filed, both under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Dehradun (the “Tribunal” in short) in Contempt Petition No.331/00125 of 2017 in O.A. No.331/39/2015 dated 28.09.2018.

2. The petitioner herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal contending that the respondents had disobeyed the order passed in O.A. No.331/39/2015 dated 05.05.2016. The petitioner had earlier filed O.A. No.331/39/2015, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Tribunal which, in its order dated 05.05.2016, observed that a mere change of qualification of a post, subsequent to the date of joining of the applicant therein, could not be a ground for cancelling his promotion by merely following the advice of the DoPT and the DST; there was no order of retrospective amendment in the service rules; it was for the appellate authority of the Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education (hear-in after referred to as the ‘ICFRE’) to apply its mind to such cases where the qualifications had been changed, so that the accrued right of previously recruited persons is protected, and they are not adversely affected; and further the applicant was correct in alleging that he had not received an opportunity for hearing on his request for his in-situ up-gradation as Scientist F.

3. Thereafter, the Tribunal observed:-

“……….. For the reasons recorded above the order of respondent no.4 dated 05.09.2013 cancelling the promotion of the applicant to the post of Scientist F is set aside. Respondents are directed to issue a fresh order after considering the representation given by the applicant to Respondent No.4. Thereafter following the rules of procedure, if the applicant is still aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent No.4 he will be entitled to file an appeal before the Chairman, ICFRE who shall decide the same after giving the applicant an opportunity of personal hearing……….”

4. The petitioner approached the Director General of ICFRE who, in his order dated 24.10.2016, observed that, having adopted the DoPTs Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme in toto, he being bound by the directives of Government of India, and the previous representations of the petitioner having been decided by the Secretary, MoEFCC and Chairman, BOG, ICFRE, the petitioner could not be granted in-situ promotion from the grade of Scientist E to Scientist F under the FCS scheme; however, if he still disagreed, he may appeal to the Secretary, MoEFCC and Chairman, BOG, ICFRE as per the directives of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.331/00039/2015 dated 05.05.2016.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Director General, IFCRE dated 24.10.2016, the petitioner approached the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India (Appellate Authority) who, by his order dated 19.06.2017, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Director General dated 24.10.2016. The petitioner chose not to question the validity of the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India dated 19.06.2017), but instead invoked the contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal alleging that the respondents had willfully disobeyed its earlier order in O.A. No.331/00039-2015 dated 05.05.2016.

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Union of India & others vs. Sh. Chattarsal Sehrawat & others, 183 (2011) DLT 495 and on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mahaveer Prasad Verma vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow & others, 2013 (2) ADJ 18. The Tribunal was of the view that no case of willful contempt was made out against the respondents and, accordingly, the contempt application was dismissed, and the notices were