Mere delay in complying with a court order does not automatically constitute civil contempt unless the conduct demonstrates intentional and deliberate disobedience; however, authorities are mandated to seek extensions if they cannot meet court-imposed timelines regarding the disbursement of retirement benefits.

O R D E R:

Petitioner claims that himself along with others filed Writ Petition No.4724 of 2018 seeking payment of gratuity and encashment of earned leave salary by Respondent No.5 Bank therein. This Court passed order under contempt dated 10.01.2025, directing Bank to pass appropriate orders settling the accounts of writ petitioners, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is stated, the Bank received the copy of the order on 08.04.2025, but failed to implement the same even after lapse of more than seven months. The respondent bank has not complied with the directions of the Court for one reason or the other.

1.1. It is stated, legal notice was issued to Bank seeking immediate payment of gratuity and encashment of leave salary as detailed in the representation dated 23.06.2025 submitted to the bank. In response, the counsel for Bank issued reply dated 01.07.2025 stating that bank was tracing old records and the order of this Court would be implemented shortly. However, despite the said assurance, the bank allegedly continued to wilfully disobey the order passed in the Writ Petition and failed to implement the same even after lapse of one more month thereafter.

1.2. The reply of Bank itself, it is contended, demonstrates that respondent is deliberately and wantonly not implementing the order, thereby causing enormous loss and hardship to writ petitioners. It is alleged that due to such negligence and non-compliance, writ petitioners are facing severe financial difficulties during their retired life. It is stated, the conduct of respondent bank amounts to wilful negligence, disregard and deliberate disobedience of the orders thereby attracting the provisions under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Respondent states that he is working as Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Nizamabad. It is stated, Writ Petition was disposed of on 10.01.2025 and the copy of the order was received by their office on 08.04.2025. Thereafter, petitioner got issued the legal notice dated 23.06.2025, to which the bank issued reply on 01.07.2025. After careful verification of all the records relating to petitioner from 10.01.1984 onwards, a detailed order was passed on 08.09.2025 and the same was furnished to him.

2.1. It is stated, the service records relating to petitioner were very old and considerable time was required for verification of records and calculation of the amounts payable to petitioner. It is stated that after completion of such verification and calculations, a detailed order dated 08.09.2025 was passed, thereby the order in Writ Petition was complied with. It is stated, the delay occurred only on account of the time taken by the office to verify old records and pass a detailed order in favour of petitioner. The respondent specifically contends that delay was neither wilful nor wanton. He tendered unconditional apology for the delay in passing the detailed order and assured that every order of this Court would be implemented in full spirit without delay. It is accordingly, prayed that contempt case be closed.

3. Heard Sri T. Kistaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent.

4. There is no dispute with regard to passing the order under contempt. There is also no dispute regarding receipt of the order copy by the respondent office on 08.04.2025. The directions issued by this Court required Respondent Bank to pass appropriate orders settling the accounts of petitioners in accordance wi