A Contempt Petition is not the appropriate legal venue to adjudicate complex claims for back wages or damages arising from delays in compliance; such matters must be brought through separate, appropriate legal proceedings.

This Contempt Petition having been heard on 02.06.2026, the Tribunal on 05.06.2026 delivered the following:

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

In the above Contempt Petition, a compliance report was filed by the respondents stating that the order has been complied with and accordingly, the Contempt Petition may be closed. On the other hand, a detailed rejoinder was filed by the original applicant contending that the order has not been complied with in its true spirit and accordingly sought for further proceedings.

2. Both sides were heard and examined the records.

3. This Tribunal by Annexure P1 order dated 22.5.2018 ordered reinstatement of the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was made clear that the applicant will not be entitled to any back wages/increments from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement. However, his service from the date of initial appointment shall be taken into account only for the purpose of pensionary/retiral benefits.

4. This order was carried in OP (CAT) No. 211 of 2018 by the respondents. An interim stay was granted by the Hon’ble High Court on 9.11.2018. The order was not implemented in the meanwhile. Ultimately by judgment dated 13.12.2024, the OP (CAT) was dismissed confirming the order of this Tribunal. However, no further direction regarding the period of implementation was mentioned therein. Ultimately, in compliance with the order, the applicant was reinstated and he reported for duty on 4.8.2025. In the above circumstances, the respondents sought for closing the Contempt Petition.

5. Objecting to it, it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Original Application was allowed ordering the applicant to be reinstated within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, it was implemented almost 7 years thereafter and hence the applicant is entitled for the entire wages during the period from which the order ought to have been implemented, covering the period during which the order was brought under stay at the instance of the respondents. In the compliance report, it was contended that the applicant could not be reinstated within two months from the date of final order, only due to the reason that there was an order of stay against the same passed by the Hon’ble High Court. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court has merged with the order of this Tribunal and there was no time frame fixed to reinstate the applicant. The respondents have already complied with the directions of the Tribunal and the delay was unintentional, and due to the pendency of the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. The delay thereafter, was due to the administrative process in obtaining sanction from the competent authority.

6. A rejoinder affidavit was filed to the above compliance report by the original applicant contending that the interim order passed by the Hon’ble High Court was in existence and the contention of the respondents that it could not be implemented because of the order is without any substance. The stay was sought, obtained and got extended by the respondents themselves and hence they cannot take advantage under the said interim order nor can they blame the High Court for granting the interim order. It was also contended that the time granted by the Tribunal was only two months and the respondents have no case that extension of time was granted by the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, whatever reasons the respondents have stated in the compliance report, are without any substance.

7. To supplement his contention, the learned counsel f