Locus standi is critical for maintainability of petitions within contempt proceedings.

Judgment [O.P.(CAT) No.136 of 2025]

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Consti- tution of India has been filed challenging the orders dated 7 July th 2025 and 10 September 2025 passed in Contempt Petition No.19 th of 2023 in O.A.No.668 of 2016 by the Central Administrative Tri-bunal, Ernakulam Bench.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the orders impugned whereby the learned Tribunal has not considered M.A.No.835 of 2025 filed in C.P.No.19 of 2023 and has refused to appreciate the contentions in the Miscellane- ous Application in proper perspective. Originally, the respondent herein had filed the O.A. seeking a direction to refix the pay with effect from 1.1.2006 in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600 and to refix Assured Career Progression benefits and other consequential refixations along with other re- liefs.

3. The learned Tribunal, while allowing the O.A. held that the respondent herein is entitled to grade pay of Rs.4600 with effect from 1.1.2006 and that they are also entitled to get their pay re- fixed with effect from 1.1.2006 in the new scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600 with all financial upgradations as per law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of having complied with the order passed in the Original Ap- plication, the learned Tribunal without appreciating M.A.No.835 of 2025 has passed the impugned orders, Exts.P1 and P2. The learned Tribunal in Ext.P1 order has held that the order passed in the O.A. has not been complied with and had granted two months’ time to implement the order failing which the competent authority among the petitioner will be directed to appear in person. The matter was posted to 10.09.2025.

5. On 10.09.2025, Ext.P2 order was passed wherein the Tribu- nal held that no further time can be granted to implement the order passed in the O.A. in the year 2016 and the Contempt Petition was filed in the year 2023 and came to the conclusion that even now the order has not been implemented. Thereafter the learned Tri- bunal has passed another interim order on 19.11.2025 finding that the first respondent remain absent on 28.10.2025 and even today, i.e. on 11.09.2025 he was absent, taking note of absolutely the callous behaviour of respondent No.1 in the Contempt Petition, a direction has been issued to arrest the first respondent in the Con- tempt Petition and produce him before the Tribunal on 18.12.2025 at 10.30 a.m. A bailable warrant has been issued through the Commissioner of Police, Delhi which is absolutely uncalled for. When the petitioner had already filed an M.A. explaining that the order passed in the O.A. has been complied with. Meanwhile, by keeping the further proceedings in Contempt Petition before the Tribunal in abeyance, till the disposal of the Original Petition.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehe- mently opposed the prayer and submitted that the Original Petition itself is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner who is not arrayed as the respondent in the Contempt Petition by name in the Original Petition. The affidavit has been filed by one Commodor Mr.Viju Samuel who is working as Chief Staff Officer (Personnel & Administration), Head Quarters, Southern Naval Command, Naval Base, Kochi. The said authority is not a party to the Contempt Petition in person.

7. Firstly, Contempt Petitions are always filed and dealt with in personal capacity and not in official capacity. The present Orig-inal Petition has been filed in official capacity. Therefore, the pe- titioner has no locus to file the same. On this groun