Non-compliance in contempt proceedings must be willful and intentional; administrative delay does not constitute contempt.

JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

The present Contempt Case is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance with the judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in O.P.(CAT) No. 14 of 2024, arising out of O.A. No. 325/2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Direct the 2^nd respondent to recommend candidates from the selection done for all the available 45 posts under the category PwD- Others.

(ii) Direct the 2^nd respondent to make necessary modifications in Annexure A8 final selection list recommending candidates for all the available 45 posts under the category PwD-Others and to consider the candidature of the applicant based on his first option as reflected in Annexure A6;

(iii) To issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal made deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(iv) To award costs to the applicant."

2.1 The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the Original Petition before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Original Petition by issuing the following directions:

“6. We thus put a caveat on the extracted portion (supra) of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dispose of the original petition while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by issuing direction to the respondents to undertake the task of identifying the posts meant for Persons with Disabilities in all the departments of Central Government having different Codes and consider the persons who have already found to be eligible (having obtained more marks than the cut off marks) for considering them to be appointed to the said posts. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of four(4) months.”

3. The impugned judgment consists of two parts:

(i) the respondents are directed to undertake the task of identifying the posts meant for Persons with Disabilities in all Central Government departments having different codes; and

(ii) thereafter, to consider persons who have already been found to be eligible, having obtained marks higher than the cut-off marks, for appointment to the said posts.

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, despite the directions issued by this Court, the order has not been complied with for more than eleven months. Therefore, such non- compliance amounts to clear and willful disobedience of the directions of this Court and constitutes contempt, rendering the respondents liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .

4. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that no willful disobedience can be attributed to the respondents herein, inasmuch as the Division Bench of this Court had directed the undertaking of the task of identifying posts meant for persons with disabilities in all Central Government Departments. The first respondent is not the authority competent to implement the directions issued by this Court. As regards the second respondent, it was submitted that they merely conduct selections at the request of various departments from time to time. Neither the first nor the second respondent is empowered to identify posts as directed by this Court. The third respondent, being the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, is onl