Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 248

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Anand Ballabh – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Gupta – Respondent
C.P. No. 9/2015 in O.A. No. 1/2014|C.P. No. 8/2015 In O.A. No. 23/2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S K Pandey
For the Respondents: Mr. T C Aggarwal

Contempt jurisdiction limited to wilful disobedience; full compliance with final order via arrears and revisions renders proceedings infructuous, despite delays or withdrawals of interim benefits.

Headnote:(A) Contempt Proceedings - Scope and ambit - Jurisdiction limited to examining wilful and deliberate disobedience of orders - Not for adjudicating fresh disputes or granting substantive relief beyond original directions - Compliance with final order renders proceedings infructuous - Liberty reserved to seek redressal of remaining entitlements before appropriate forum. (Paras 5, 5.1, 5.2, 6)

(B) Service Law - MACP - Second financial upgradation in higher grade pay on completion of 20 years service - Direction for resolution and implementation within time frame - Subsequent compliance through amendment orders, release of arrears, leave encashment and PPO revisions upheld as full compliance. (Paras 1, 3.4, 3.5)

(C) Compliance of Judicial Orders - Withdrawal of interim benefits without leave after compliance affidavits and dismissal of earlier contempt - Amounts to disobedience unless stayed - But rendered moot upon final compliance and higher court affirmations. (Paras 2.4, 2.5, 5.1)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, employees seeking second MACP benefits, obtained interim and final orders directing grant of grade pay on 20 years service. Respondents complied with interim orders but delayed final order implementation, leading to contempt petitions after dismissal of writ appeals. Compliance affidavits filed post directions, with higher court noting implementation.

Findings of Court:
Final order complied with via amendment factory orders, arrears release, leave encashment processing and PPO revisions. No wilful disobedience established. Contempt proceedings closed.

Issues: Whether respondents committed wilful disobedience of final order directing second MACP; scope of contempt jurisdiction over consequential benefits like interest and further upgradations.

Ratio Decidendi: Contempt requires proof of wilful, intentional disobedience; mere delay insufficient if eventual full compliance demonstrated through affidavits and actions. Proceedings not for execution or new claims.

Result: Contempt petitions closed, notices discharged; liberty granted for remaining claims.

Table of Content
1. petitioners listed in contempt petitions. (Para 22)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the instant Contempt Petitions, the petitioners are seeking compliance of the order dated 07.04.2015 passed by this Tribunal, wherein the following directions were passed:

“21. In the light of the facts and circumstances stated above, we find that the department of the respondents as well as the DOP&T and the Government of India at the highest levels recognize the fact that the grievance of the applicants have considerable merits and hence, it also recognizes the need to redress the same appropriately at a suitable platform of the Government of India. However, the prevarication shown by the DOP&T till now in not effectively addressing the issue in a time bound manner cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

22. We find that the present Original Application stands on a similar footing as O.A. No. 1038 of 2010 decided by CAT Chandigarh Bench on 31.05.2011. This order has been upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana also. Accordingly, we direct that the impugned orders dated 01.12.2010 and 20.06.2011 are quashed and set aside to the extent, these letters declare the Grade of Rs. 2800/- as promotion for the purpose of ACP and hence, by implication for purposes of MACP for those employees eligible for financial upgradation from the highly skilled category in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-. As regards the grant of 2nd Financial Upgradation to the applicants in Pay Band-II, Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. the completion of 20 years of service, we direct the respondent’s no. 1 and 2 to resolve this issue which is already pending before them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and implement the final resolution within this period.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed the associated Original Applications before this Tribunal in the year 2014. In both the matters, interim orders were passed granting the benefit of Second MACP in Grade Pay ₹4200/- on completion of 20 years of service.

2.1. As the said interim orders were not complied with, Contempt Petition No. 1/2014 and Contempt Petition No. 2/2014 were filed. The said contempt petitions were clubbed together, notices were issued, and thereafter the respondents complied with the interim orders by granting Grade Pay ₹4200/- to all the petitioners. Compliance affidavits were filed to that effect, and consequently, the contempt petitions were dismissed and notices discharged, as the petitioners were granted Grade Pay ₹4200/- with effect from the date of the interim orders.

2.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the Original Applications were finally allowed by a common order dated 07.04.2015, whereby this Tribunal directed the respondents to grant Second MACP to all the petitioners in the appropriate Grade Pay with effect from completion of 20 years of service within a period of three months. However, the respondents failed to comply with the said final order, compelling the petitioners to file the present Contempt Petitions.

2.3. In the meanwhile, the Union of India preferred two Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which were dismissed on 11.06.2024. Thereafter, applications for reopening of the present Contempt Petitions were filed, which were allowed by this Tribunal. The matters were thereafter listed on several dates, i.e., 20.02.2025, 19.05.2025, 23.05.2025, 10.07.2025, 09.09.2025, 10.11.2025, 15.12.2025 and 10.12.2025.

2.4. It is further submitted that at no point of time was any interim stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Therefore, the respondents were under a clear legal obligation to continue payment of Grade Pay ₹4200/- to the petitioners. Despite this, the respondents not only failed to continue the payment but illegally withdrew/withheld the said Grade Pay, particularly in the cases of retired

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 248

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALManish Garg, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)Anand Ballabh – AppellantVersusAshok Kumar Gupta – RespondentC.P. No. 9/2015 in O.A. No. 1/2014|C.P. No. 8/2015 In O.A. No. 23/2014

Contempt jurisdiction limited to wilful disobedience; full compliance with final order via arrears and revisions renders proceedings infructuous, despite delays or withdrawals of interim benefits.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Anand Ballabh – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Gupta – Respondent
C.P. No. 9/2015 in O.A. No. 1/2014|C.P. No. 8/2015 In O.A. No. 23/2014