Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7124
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SUNIL THOMAS, Mrs. V. Rama Mathew, JJ
Jacob Thomas – Appellant
Versus
Shri Devendra Chowdary – Respondent
Contempt Petition No. 180/00057/2017 in O.A/180/00343/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair
For the Respondents: Mr. N. Anilkumar, SPC
Contempt proceedings cannot be upheld if the order sought to be implemented is silent on consequential reliefs.
Headnote:The contempt petition pertains to the failure to grant consequential reliefs following an order to antedate promotion to Junior Fisheries Scientist, based on service completion. The court determined that contempt proceedings could not be upheld due to the specifics of the order and noted the necessity for the respondents to address a representation for reliefs. The final outcome was that the contempt petition was closed with no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to grant relief following an order. (Para 1) |
| 2. contempt proceedings deemed not sustainable. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondents must consider representation for relief. (Para 3) |
| 4. court closed contempt petition with no costs. (Para 4) |
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member The grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, though by office order dated 09.06.2025, a copy of which was placed before us, the promotion of the petitioner was antedated to the post of Junior Fisheries Scientist, consequential reliefs have not been granted and hence Contempt Petition is liable to be pursued.
2. The learned SPC, who took notice for the respondents in the Rule 8 notice, invited our attention to the order which is sought to be implemented. The crucial part of the order states that “The applicant completed his 6 years of service as Senior Scientific Assistant on 10.04.2011 to qualify for promotion to the post of JFS on 10.04.2011. Hence, the respondent is directed to antedate the promotion of the applicant as JFS with effect from 10.04.2011, the date he completes 6 years of service as required under the operation of VI CPC pay scales and the connected revised recruitment rules”. Our attention has also been drawn to the order which states that there was a specific prayer seeking antedating of his promotion and consequential arrears of pay and allowances arising after the orders. The order is conspicously silent regarding granting of such relief. Hence, it has
2025.07.09 A X to deemed that the relief has been impliedly declined.
3. Having held so, the grievance of the petitioner cannot survive especially in the contempt proceeding in which the order is to be implemented in strict terms. Accordingly, we find that contempt will not lie. However, it is noted that the petitioner has submitted a reperesentation dated 18.06.2025 seeking consequential reliefs. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders within a period of 2 months from the date of reciept of a copy of this order and the petitioner will be free to challenge such an order.
4. With the above observation, the C.P(C) is closed. No costs.
