Contempt requires proof of willful disobedience; mere procedural errors do not constitute contempt.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Heard Shri S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present Contempt Petition is filed against non-compliance of the order dated 22.05.2024 passed in OA No. 537 of 2024. In OA No. 537 of 2024, while allowing the OA, the following directions were given to the respondents:-

“13. For the foregoing reasons, the instant OA is allowed at the admission stage itself. Respondents are hereby directed to issue one notional increment to the applicants and further issue revised PPO(s) in this regard. However, arrear payment of only three years preceding to the date of filing of this original application i.e. 20.05.2024 shall be made to the applicants @ 6% simple interest per annum. The said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order without fail, otherwise the applicant shall be entitled for 6% Simple Interest per annum from the date of filing of present OA i.e. 20.05.2024”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed OA No. 537/2024 seeking grant of one notional increment as they had completed one full year of service from the date of the previous increment but were denied the benefit for the last year of service. Their claim was supported by the law laid down in P. Ayyamperumal and Director (Admn. & HR) KPTCL vs. C.P. Mundinamani reported in (2023) SCC online S.C. 401 (Civil Appeal No.(s) 2471/2023 decided on 11.04.2023). The OA was allowed by this Tribunal on 22.05.2024, and the directions have already been reproduced above.

4. The respondents have filed three compliance affidavits pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 22.05.2024. In their latest compliance affidavit dated 30.10.2025, the respondents have stated that one notional increment has been granted, arrears have been paid and revised PPOs have been issued to all eligible applicants except applicant Nos. 1, 8, and 12, who were found ineligible on examination. It is further stated that interest has not been granted because the Tribunal’s order does not provide for payment of interest except in case of delay beyond the stipulated period.

5. We have heard and considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.

6. The Contempt of Courts Act , 1971 clearly emphasizes that ingredients of willful disobedience must be there before anyone can be charged for contempt of a civil nature. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Company Limited , (2010) 12 SCC 770 has observed that “contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a willful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out.” This observation finds further force in the order delivered in the matter of Ahmad Ali. Vs. Supdt., District Jail, 1986 Supp SCC 556 : AIR 1987 SC 1491 wherein it has been observed that “mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and although disobedience might have been established, absence of willful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct”.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. GanpatDuggar and others AIR 1997 Supreme Court 113 has held that in compliance of the order of the Court, the preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or