In contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot adjudicate the merits of a compliance order issued by a public authority; an aggrieved party must seek redressal through independent judicial review of such an order, as it creates a fresh cause of action.

O R D E R

05.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeks the following prayers: -

“(a) Initiate contempt proceeding against the alleged contemnor for willfully and deliberately disobeying the judgment dated 12.2.2020 of this Hon'ble Court passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) 1605 of 2020 and direct them to re-fix Salary at par with their Junior Sh. Brij Mohan & Sh. P.N. LAL and to pay arrears arising out of re fixation and all Consequential Benefits / Reliefs in Deptt. of Telecom / PSUs in which the Applicants herein got absorbed (in the interest of Service) i.e. Absorption in PSUs at appropriate Positions Commensurate with the Revised Last cadre in Deptt. of Telecom. and subsequent time to time Promotions and Payments Arrears of Revised Pay & Allowances in their Respective PSUs. Accordingly, the REVISION of Pension is also Prayed.

(b) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Vide judgment dated 12.02.2020, the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 1605/2020 has passed the following directions:-

“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is more than 73 years of age and, to put a quietus to the matter, is willing to accept the same benefits which have been provided to Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswanath Pradhan, who were junior to him.

5. Mr. Abhay Kumar Sahay, learned Standing Counsel submits that he would examine the matter as to whether the petitioner can be granted the same benefits which were granted to Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswanath Pradhan.

6. Let this aspect of the matter be considered by the respondent within four weeks from today ; and the petitioner be informed about the same immediately thereafter.

7. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same in accordance with law.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid direction with respect to the grant of benefits to the petitioners as has been granted to Sh. P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth, who were junior to them, has not been complied by the respondents. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits was to be considered within four weeks of the passing of the aforesaid order, however, respondents had passed the speaking order after the expiry of said period. Therefore, the respondents are in wilful disobedience of the aforesaid directions.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the direction of the learned Division Bench was for consideration of the petitioners’ case for grant of the same benefits, as were granted to Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth, under due intimation to them. It is submitted that respondent No.1 has passed speaking orders with respect to the petitioners in compliance with the aforesaid directions. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners for grant of benefits at par with Shri P.N. Lal and Shri Biswananth, has been duly considered in the said speaking order and the petitioners were also informed regarding the passing of their respective speaking orders.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Initially, the petitioners had filed OA No.1831/2018 which was disposed of by learned CAT, vide order dated 09.05.2018, at the stage of admission itself, without going into the other merits of the case, by directing the respondents to consider representations of the petitioners and to pass appropriate speaking and reason