$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6573/2017 VINOD KUMAR & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate.

versus BIMAL JULKA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.M. Arif and Ms. Shabnam Perween, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. This Writ petition is filed by the Petitioners challenging the order dated 10.03.2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’), passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in C.P. No. 357/2015 in O.A. No. 2591/2013.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal, after considering all aspects of the matter, had refused to proceed with the contempt petition. Paragraph 9 of the impugned order reads as under:

“9. It is to be seen that this Tribunal disposed of the OA No. 2591/2013, summarily and without going into the merits of the case and that the Hon’ble High Court of Patna while disposing of the CWJC No. 6451/2010 (supra) also observed that the direction should only be to consider the cases of the applicants but not to grant the same, without examining each case on its own merits.”

3. It is pertinent to note that in similar circumstances, another petition was disposed of by this Court on 21.02.2017 [being W.P. (C) 6599/2016] while refusing to continue with the contempt proceedings, which read as under:

“ Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.04.2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in C.P. No.443/2015 in OA No. 4191/2013, titled Anil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Bimal Julka & Anr.

The order under challenge holds that there was substantial compliance and the petitioners', if aggrieved, could challenge the orders passed in accordance with law.

2. The Tribunal disposing of OA No. 4191/2013 vide dated 28.01.2015, had directed the authorities to extend the benefit as extended by the Patna Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 514/2002 in Akashwani & Doordarshan Diploma Engineers Association through its President Vs.

UOI & Ors.

3. The operative portion of the order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.

514/2002 reads as under:-

“9. This O.A. is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the applicants the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 as and when they have completed 12 years service in the pay scale of Rs.6500- 10500. The arrears should also be paid to the applicants. The respondents are directed to issue orders regarding ACP promotion to the applicants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The arrears may be calculated and paid to them within one month thereafter.

10. With these directions, this O.A. stands disposed. No costs.”

4. This order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.514/2002 was made the subject-matter of challenge before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6451/2010 titled The Union of India & Ors. v. Akashwani and Doordarshan Diploma Engineers‟ Association. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2010, observing that there was substance in the submission made by the Union of India and that general directions should not have been issued to cover cases of all individuals because each case requires consideration under the ACP Scheme. The Union of India was directed to consider grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme to the applicants before the Tribunal in OA No.514/2002 within a period of three months in accordance with law and subject to the observations made in the said decision.

5. The case of the respondents is that they have considered each individual case and thereafter passed the speaking orders dated

13.10.2015 denying the claim of the petitioners.

6. We agree with the Tribunal that the petitioners cannot challenge the orders dated 13.10.2015 in the cont