Satish Kumar Srivastava vs Ms Vandita Kaul & Others

CAT, Lucknow Bench CP No. 51/2024 in OA No. 332/00287 of 2021 S.K. Srivastava Vs Ms. Vandita Kaul



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW

Contempt Petition No. 332/00051/2024
in
Original Application No. 332/00287/2021
th
Dated, this day of 16 October, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

1. Satish Kumar Srivastava, aged about 60 years and 06 months, S/o
Late C.B. Srivastava, R/o House No. E-VI/N-8, Sector N-2, Aliganj,
Lucknow-226024.
2. Mohan Lall Gupta, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Mansha Ram, R/o
4/862, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow.
3. Uma Shanker Vishwakarma, aged about 65 years, S/o Sri Saryu
Prasad, R/o Village Modha (South), Post Faizabad HPO, District
Ayodhya.
4. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, aged about 62 years, S/o late Girdhari Lal
Srivastava, R/o House No. 47, Mohalla Anand Vihar Colony, In
front of RML University, Post Office Gaddopur Majhwa, District
Ayodhya.

4.1 Smt. Sunita Srivastava, aged about 61 years, W/o Late Rajesh
Kumar Srivastava, R/o House No. 47 Mohalla Anand Vihar
Colony, In front of RML University, Post Gaddopur, Mojhwa,
District Ayodhya.
5. Chandra Prakash Pandey, aged about 61 years, S/o Sri Jagar
Narain Pandey, R/o 405 KGR Popular Apartment, Ashapur Road,
Pahariya (Sarnath), Varanasi 221007.
6. Abhai Kumar, aged about 61 years, S/o Sri Prem Narain Srivastava,
R/o 328 Daryabad, Allahabad (now Prayagraj).
7. Ravindra Kumar, aged about 62 years, S/o Sri J.P. Verma, R/o
4/240 Virat Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010.
7.1. Smt. Kusum aged about 56 years, W/o Late Ravindra Kumar,
R/o 4/240 Virat Khand, gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP 226010.
8. Mohammad Fakhrul Islam, aged about 61 years, S/o Sri Islam
Ullah, R/o 141/211 Harwara, Allahabad (now Prayagraj).
9. Pradeep Kumar Saxena, aged about 62 years, S/o Sri Shyam Sarup
Saxena, R/o House No. 945, Adarsh Colony, Muzaffarnagar.

….. Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Awasthi

Page 1 of 5

CAT, Lucknow Bench CP No. 51/2024 in OA No. 332/00287 of 2021 S.K. Srivastava Vs Ms. Vandita Kaul



VERSUS
1. Ms. Vandita Kaul, Secretary, Ministry of Communication,
Department of Posts, Government of India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-
11001.
2. Sri Sanjay Saran, Director General of Posts, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. Sri Ravi Pahva, Assistant Director General (PE-1(SCT)-LO,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi110001.
4. Sri Pranav Kumar, Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow
226001.
5. Sri Rajendra Prasad, General Manager (Finance), Department of
Posts, Sector D Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.
…..Proposed Contemnors
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the
proposed contemnors and perused the records.
2. This Contempt Petition has been preferred by the applicants,
alleging willful disobedience of judgment and order dated 06.03.2024
passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 287 of 2021.
3. In OA No. 287 of 2021, the issue agitated by the applicants was
for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- on completion of 4 years of service
in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- as per the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Madras in M Subramaniam vs Union of India & Ors and the
subsequent cases allowed by various Benches of this Tribunal. The
relevant part of the judgment and order dated 06.03.2024 of this
Tribunal in OA No. 287 of 2021 is extracted below:
“ 6.2 Several instances have been placed before us by the applicants
wherein the benefit of M Subramaniam (supra) has been allowed by this
Tribunal and implemented by Union of India e.g. OA No. 1982 of 2018
decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, OA No. 522 and 523 of
2020 decided by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal and OA No. 1595 of
2019 decided by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal.
Page 2 of 5

CAT, Lucknow Bench CP No. 51/2024 in OA No. 332/00287 of 2021 S.K. Srivastava Vs Ms. Vandita Kaul



6.3 It is not in dispute that the applicants are situated
similarly to the applicants of the cases cited above who have been
granted grade pay of Rs. 5,400 after four years of service in grade
pay of Rs. 4,800 by the respondents.
7.1 In view of the foregoing, we direct the respondents to
decide the case of the applicants in light of the orders passed in OA
No. 1982 of 2018 by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, in OA Nos.
522 and 523 by the Chandigarh Bench, and in OA No. 1595 of 2019
by the Kolkata Bench within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. The proposed contemnors, vide M.P. No. 2486 of 2024 dated
14.10.2024, submitted their order dated 09.09.2024 passed purportedly
in compliance of this Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 06.03.2024
wherein the applicants’ case for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 was
rejected. On consideration of the same, the following interim order was
passed by this Tribunal on 28.11.2024 in the instant Contempt Petition:
“5. It is evident from the above that the respondents have arrived at a
conclusion which is at variance with the conclusion of this Tribunal arrived
at paragraph 6.2 and 6.3 of the order dated 06.03.2024 in OA No. 287 of
2021. If the respondents did not agree with the order dated 06.03.2024,
they had the option to file a Review Application before this Tribunal or file a
Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court. The respondents have done neither
and yet proceeded to arrive at a conclusion which is at variance with our
findings, a course of action which was not open to them. In our view, the
respondents‟ order dated 09.09.2024 does not comport with our
order dated 06.03.2024. This approach of the respondents is not
appreciated. The case for contempt of this Tribunal is made out.
However, considering the earnest submission of learned counsel for
the respondents that an opportunity may be afforded to the
respondents to rectify the mistake, we direct the respondents to
consider the matter afresh strictly in accordance with our judgment
and order dated 06.03.2024 and pass a revised order within one
month of receipt of certified copy of this order. ”
(emphasis supplied)
6. Pursuant to the above stated interim order dated 28.11.2024,
subsequent filings by both the parties and this Tribunal’s interim order
dated 28.01.2026, the proposed contemnors filed supplementary
compliance report vide MA Nos. 768-769 of 2026 dated 17.03.2026
enclosing revised Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) issued in respect of the
applicants on the basis of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400.
Page 3 of 5

CAT, Lucknow Bench CP No. 51/2024 in OA No. 332/00287 of 2021 S.K. Srivastava Vs Ms. Vandita Kaul



7. The applicants, vide MA No. 987 of 2026 dated 08.04.2026 and
MA No. 1795 of 2026 dated 14.07.2026 have objected to the manner of
compliance averring that while the Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 has been
granted to the applicants, the proposed contemnors have arbitrarily not
granted one increment in fixing the applicants’ pay in Pay Level 9 and,
therefore, the order of this Tribunal has not been complied fully.
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in
regard to the subject matter of contempt in Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs
& Ors vs P Ravi Kumar & Ors 2024 INSC 957 :
“1.10 In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that
disobedience of the order is „wilful‟. It means knowingly-intentional,
conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of
consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental,
bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not
include involuntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person
means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is
too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the
action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be
maintainable. ”
(emphasis supplied)
9. It is noted that the relief sought by the applicants’ in OA No. 287
of 2021 was limited to grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400. Admittedly, the
Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 has been granted to the applicants by the
proposed contemnors. The issue of grant of increment in fixation of pay
was neither agitated specifically in the reliefs sought nor adjudicated
upon by this Tribunal in specific terms. In view of this position, it cannot
be said that there has been willful disobedience of this Tribunals’
judgment and order dated 06.03.2024 in OA No. 287 of 2021.
10. In view of the foregoing, this Contempt Petition is closed and the
notices to the proposed contemnors are discharged.
11. However, if the applicants are aggrieved that they have not been
afforded similar treatment in the matter of grant of increment in pay
Page 4 of 5

CAT, Lucknow Bench CP No. 51/2024 in OA No. 332/00287 of 2021 S.K. Srivastava Vs Ms. Vandita Kaul



fixation as extended to other similarly situated employees, they shall
have the liberty to approach this Tribunal suitably in fresh OA.



(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)


vidya


Vidya Ben
Waghela
Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Date: 2026.10.21
15:19:00 +05'30'
Page 5 of 5