Brijanandan Dwivedi vs MS SANJEEV KUMAR SECRETARY DEFENCE PRODUCTION

1

Item No.9 CP 857/2026 in OA 2570/2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Nainital Circuit Sitting.

CP 857/2026 in OA 2570/2025

th
This the 26 day of October, 2026

Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Brijanandan Dwivedi (Male) aged about 60 years, Sio Late
Jai Narayan Dwivedi, Personal No.000501(HRM) Retired
from the Post of MTS, Ordnance Factory, Dehradoon Rio
House No. 121, Lower Nehru Gram, Near Church, P.O.
Nehru Gram, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 248005.
…Appllicant
(By Advocate:-Mr. S.K. Pandey)

Versus
1. MS. SANJEEV KUMAR, Secretary, Department of Defence
ProductIOn, Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Dr. Jyoti Prakash Das, Director General, Ordnance
Factory Board, Mmistry of Defence, Government of India,
lOA, S K Bose Road, Kolkata.
3. Sharmishtha Koul Sharma, Chief Managing Director,
India Optel Limited, Raipur, Dehradoon
4. MR. B.C. Joshi, Deputy Director General, DoO (C&S) Field
Unit, OFD Campus Raipur, Dehradun-248008.
5. Mr. Chandrabhan Singh Thakur, Chief General Manager,
Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun.
-----Contemnors/Opposite Parties/Respondents
By Advocate:-Mr. T.C. Aggarwal)




UMA
2026.10.28
10:36:20+05'30'
UMA

2

Item No.9 CP 857/2026 in OA 2570/2025

O R D E R (ORAL)
As Per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member Judicial

Heard the parties.
2. By way of the present CP, the applicant is alleging willful
disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2026 passed in OA No
2570/2025, whereby direction was issued to the respondents to
pass appropriate orders regarding the consideration of the case of
the applicant and in the event the applicant is found fit and is
granted promotion on the basis of merit and eligibility under the
applicant recruitment rules, he shall be entitled arising therefrom
in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents at the outset
submits that there is no willful disobedience of the order the
order 21.07.2026 passed in OA No 2570/2025 and same been
duly complied with by the respondents vide speaking order dated
31.07.2026 and same has been filed by the applicant himself in
the paper book. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to
adjudicate again substantive rights and nothing remains to be
adjudicated in the present CP.
4. Heard. We have considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. The short issue regarding that arises for our consideration
is as to “whether there is willful disobedience of order dated
21.07.2026 passed in OA No 2570/2025.
6. In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties,
relevant para 8, 9 10, 11 & 12 of the order dated 21.07.2026
passed in OA No 2570/2025 are extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
“8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to examine the case of the applicant
for promotion to the post of LDC, strictly in accordance with the applicable
Recruitment Rules, particularly the criteria relating to seniority-cum-suitability, as
applicable to the applicant.
UMA
2026.10.28
10:36:20+05'30'
UMA

3

Item No.9 CP 857/2026 in OA 2570/2025

9. Since the applicant has already approached this Tribunal and has himself
submitted that appropriate orders regarding his consideration may be passed
before his date of superannuation, i.e., 31.07.2026 the respondents shall
undertake the aforesaid exercise on or before the date of retirement of the
applicant.
10. Needless to say, in the event the applicant is found fit and is granted
promotion on the basis of his merit and eligibility under the applicable
Recruitment Rules, he shall be entitled arising therefrom in accordance with law.
11. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably before the
date of superannuation of the applicant. In the event , the promotional order(s)
are passed either on 31.7.2026 or at later date, the applicant shall only be
entitled to notional benefits only.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of.”
7. As evident from order dated 21.07.2026 in OA No
2570/2025, the Tribunal considered the case of the applicant, for
consideration of claim for promotion to the post of LDC under
applicable RRs. We have already extracted the operative
paragraphs of order dated 21.07.2026.
8. Vide order dated 21.07.2026, there was specific direction to
examine and consider the case of the applicant according to RRs
and appropriate orders regarding his consideration may be
passed before 31.07.2026.
9. Respondents have examined the case of the applicant and
on consideration of the case for promotion to post of LDC in
accordance with applicable RRs and criteria of seniority. The
order dated 21.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal has been
complied and respondents have issued compliance order dated
31.07.2026 and speaking order dated 31.07.2026. The mandate
of the order dated 21.07.2026 in OA No 2570/2025 to “consider”
the case for promotion to the post of LDC as per RRs on or before
31.07.2026 has been carried out.
10. In order to appreciate the claim of both the parties, we
deem it proper to refer to relevant provisions of " The Act, 1971 "
and refer the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(A) The disobedience of the orders of the Court in order to
constitute contempt must be willful. The statutory definition in
Section 2 (b) of “The Act, 1971”, the essential feature in order to
UMA
2026.10.28
10:36:20+05'30'
UMA

4

Item No.9 CP 857/2026 in OA 2570/2025

constitute contempt, the disobedience must be willful. The
definition of civil-contempt envisaged in sec 2 (b) of The Act,
1971 reads as
:
"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a)…………………………………………………………………………………………….
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court;"
(emphasis supplied)
Case Law
(i) In the case of Director of Education, Uttaranchal and
Others Vs. Ved Prakash Joshi and Others, (2005) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 98, Their Lordships in paragraph 7 held as under:
"7. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned
with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had
been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the
correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a
view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was
taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union of India¹. The court exercising contempt
jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of
the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the
directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in
the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to
him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be
agitated before the higher court. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction
cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a
manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Right
or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render
the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for
contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of
which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have
been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the
order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give
additional directions or delete any direction . That would be exercising
review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt
proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that
view of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside."
UMA [emphasis supplied]
2026.10.28
10:36:20+05'30'
UMA

5

Item No.9 CP 857/2026 in OA 2570/2025

(ii) In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Subedar
Devassy PV, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 613: 2006 SCC
OnLine SC 70. Their Lordships
in paragraph 6 held as under:
"6. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong
or against the rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it
should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke
jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be
urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed.
Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While
dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse
beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words,
it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been
done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. Itcannot test the correctness
or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any
direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing
with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same
would be impermissible and indefensible."
[emphasis supplied]
11. We are of the opinion that once there is an order dated
21.07.2026 in OA No 2570/2025 to consider case of the
applicant for promotion in accordance with rules. The
respondents passed order dated 31.07.2026 and speaking order
dated 31.07.2026, based on direction of this Tribunal to examine
and pass appropriate orders on consideration on or before
31.07.2026.
12. There arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an
appropriate forum. The compliance order dated 31.07.2026, may
be right or may be wrong but that would be a fresh cause of
action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum- to applicant to
avail opportunity of judicial review.
13. We cannot consider the action of respondents to be willful
disobedience of the order dated 21.07.2026 in OA No 2570/2025.
14. For all the reasons and in view of the decision taken by the
respondents vide speaking order dated 31.07.2026 and the
UMA
2026.10.28
10:36:20+05'30'
UMA

6

Item No.9 CP 857/2026 in OA 2570/2025

principles enunciated in various decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the present contempt
petition, consequently the same is dismissed and the
respondents are discharged with liberty to the applicant to assail
the correctness of the compliance order dated 31.07.2026 in
accordance with law. No Costs.

(Rajinder Kashyap) (Ajay Pratap Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)

/ abhay/
UMA
2026.10.28
10:36:20+05'30'
UMA