CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR Contempt Petition No.193/2024 in Original Application No.202/2014 Pronounced on : 20.02.2026 Reserved on : 28.01.2026 CORAM HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE Dr. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)

Lalit Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o 1/170, Housing Board, Jawahar Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan-335001.

…..Applicant By Advocate : Mr. S.K. Malik Versus

1. Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. Major General, Manoj Oommen, Chief Engineer, South Western Command, Jaipur-302012.

...... Respondents By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Tiwari ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

Instant Contempt (Civil) Petition has been preferred by the applicant under Rule 5 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Contempt of Court) Rules, 1992 for alleging non-compliance of the direction issued while deciding the OA No.202/2014 on 25.10.2023 by this Bench.

2. The Original Application was filed for seeking direction against the respondents to consider the name of the applicant for promotion to the post of SA Grade-A. While allowing the Original Application, this tribunal directed the respondents to take necessary steps regarding his claim for promotion to the post of SA Grade-A by convening the DPC through physical or virtual mode within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. In compliance of the order passed by this bench, the review panel for promotion from Security Assistant Grade-C to Security Assistant Grade-A was prepared on 14.11.2024 (Annexure-CR/1) whereby the name of the applicant was approved for promotion against the vacancy year 2009-2010. His name was recommended for promotion, however, on 18.02.2025 (Annexure-CP/4), a letter was issued by SE, Director (EIC-II) addressed to Headquarter Chief Engineer South Western Command, C/O 56 APO, not to process the promotion-cum-posting order of the applicant in view of the recently delivered judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.11.2024 passed in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., wherein it was held that promotion to retired person cannot be granted retrospectively.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that this judgment does not come in the way of promoting the applicant since his name has already been approved for promotion before pronouncement of the above judgment by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant may be granted promotion on notional basis with retrospective effect.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Er. K. Arumugam vs. V. Balakrishnan, reported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 124, submits that the applicant cannot raise a new controversy in the contempt petition. The direction in the OA was for taking necessary steps for promoting the applicant by convening the DPC. After receiving the copy of the order of this tribunal, the respondents processed the matter and convened the Review DPC wherein the name of the applicant was approved for promotion. Meantime, he retired on 31.07.2024 therefore, he could not be granted promotion with retrospective effect in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors (supra). There is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents, therefore, the present contempt petition is not maintainable.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that the applicant is trying to enlarge the scope of Contempt petition by making challenge to order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure-CP/4) whereby the process of gra