Vishwajeet Souryan vs Union Of India And Anr.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 20.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 21.04.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 21.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 134/2026 & CM APPL. 660/2026, CM APPL.
659/2026
VISHWAJEET SOURYAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with
Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr.
Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan
Narwal and Mr. Kushagra
Malik, Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. :
1. The present Petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 15.10.2025
[hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as „CAT/Tribunal‟] in
Contempt Petition No. 982/2024 in O.A. No. 2912/2023. By the
Impugned Order, the Tribunal dismissed the Contempt Petition,
holding that the Respondents had complied with its earlier directions
of 07.08.2024 and that no contempt was made out. The Petitioner
seeks quashing of the CAT‟s Impugned Order and a direction to
allocate him the post of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in the
EWS quota (Economically Weaker Section), contending that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 1 of 12

Respondents ignored material communications and thereby violated
the Tribunal‟s directions.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Petitioner appeared in the Civil Services Examination,
2022, and secured a rank entitling him to appointment as an IAS
officer under the EWS category. The Petitioner‟s father was an
employee in Government service, and his mother filed Income Tax
Returns (ITRs) for the relevant assessment year (AY 2021-22) in
which a sum of Rs. 49,599 was shown as income under the head
“Salaries”. The Petitioner‟s family holds a EWS (Income & Asset)
certificate, granted by the competent revenue authority (Tehsildar).
3. Notwithstanding his rank and certificate, the Petitioner was
allotted the Indian Police Service (IPS) instead of the IAS. Candidates
ranked lower than him, and who also claimed EWS status, were
appointed as IAS officers. The cause for this apparent anomaly was
communicated to the Petitioner: the DoPT treated the Petitioner‟s
family income as exceeding the EWS income limit of Rs.8 lakh for
the relevant year, on account of the Rs.49,599 appearing in his
mother‟s ITR for AY 2021-22. The Petitioner therefore filed a
representation in August 2023 seeking rectification, to no avail.
4. Consequent thereto, the Petitioner filed O.A. No. 2972/2023
before the CAT (Principal Bench), challenging his allocation. The
Tribunal disposed of that O.A. by its order dated 30.04.2024.
Aggrieved by the operative directions, the Petitioner filed Revision
Application No. 50/2024 for review/modification of the order of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 2 of 12

30.04.2024. The DoPT also filed a cross-revision (R.A. 60/2024). The
CAT heard these revision applications and, on 07.08.2024, passed a
reasoned order modifying the earlier order (30.04.2024). The
concluding directions of the order dated 07.08.2024 are reproduced
below:
“14. … In the instant OA, the respondents have not disputed the
certificate issued by the Tehsildar … and the Income Tax Return of the
mother of the applicant. There is nothing on record to establish that
the respondents have … got the documents verified by the Tehsildar as
prescribed under the DoPT OM dated 31.01.2019.
15. In view of the absence of the verification exercise undertaken by
the respondents with respect to the certificate issued by the Tehsildar
and omitting to confirm the reason for inflation of the income tax
return of the mother of the applicant, the OA is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to re-confirm from the CBDT whether
income received under various heads by the mother of the applicant
as reflected in the ITR was in fact accounted for the relevant financial
year 2020-2021 or otherwise; and in case after confirming the same,
it is found that the income relates back to earlier years, the benefit of
EWS category shall be extended to the applicant and his service shall
be re-allocated accordingly.”
5. In compliance with this direction, DoPT sought clarification
from the Income Tax authorities. The CBDT (Income Tax
Department) issued a communication dated 18.09.2024. In that
communication, the CBDT noted that, as per the ITR filed by the
Petitioner‟s mother for AY 2021-22, her gross income under the heads
“Salaries” and “Income from other sources” exceeded Rs.8 lakh, and
it specifically recorded that no relief under Section 89(1) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 had been claimed by her. (Section 89 deals
with relief on receiving salary/pension in arrears or advance.)
However, the Petitioner points out that on the same date (18.09.2024)
a different communication was sent by the Pr. Commissioner of
Income Tax, which reconciled the Rs.49,599 in question as salary
arrears pertaining solely to FY 2020-21. Subsequently, on 19.09.2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 3 of 12

the Income Tax Department (Pr. CIT, Bareilly) reiterated that the
amount of Rs.49,599/- was indeed salary arrears for FY 2020-21.
6. Thereupon, DoPT issued a speaking order dated 04.10.2024 in
which it denied the benefit of EWS reservation to the Petitioner. The
order held that the Rs.49,599/- shown in the ITR did not qualify as
arrears of the previous year for the purposes of income calculation,
and hence, the Petitioner‟s family income for FY 2020-21 exceeded
Rs.8 lakh. The Petitioner responded by a representation dated
11.11.2024, pointing out that this view was inconsistent with the
Income Tax Department‟s confirmation (as per their 19.09.2024
communication) that the sum was in fact arrears of the prior year.
7. Aggrieved by the DoPT‟s 04.10.2024 order, the Petitioner filed
Contempt Petition No. 982/2024 in OA 2912/2023 before the CAT,
alleging that the Respondents had wilfully disregarded the Tribunal‟s
07.08.2024 directions. He relied on the Income Tax Department‟s
letters (19.09.2024 and later CBDT letter 18.07.2025) which, in his
submission, established that the Rs.49,599 was salary arrears of FY
2020-21. Accordingly, he contended that the Respondents‟ refusal to
treat him as EWS (and consequent non-issuance of IAS allotment)
violated the Tribunal‟s directions and amounted to contempt.
8. The CAT first heard the Contempt Petition on 09.05.2025. By
order dated 09.05.2025, the Tribunal observed that the Respondents‟
compliance was in question and directed them to submit a
“Compliance Affidavit” on the issue. The matter was subsequently
heard, and by the Impugned Order dated 15.10.2025, the Tribunal
dismissed the Contempt Petition. The Tribunal held that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 4 of 12

Respondents had “re-confirmed” the Petitioner‟s mother‟s income as
per their directions and concluded that no wilful disobedience of the
07.08.2024 order had taken place.
9. Challenging this Impugned Order, the Petitioner approaches
this Court by way of the present Petition. The question for our
consideration is whether the CAT was justified in closing the
contempt proceedings. In doing so, we must examine (i) the true
import of the CAT‟s 07.08.2024 directions; (ii) the steps taken by the
Respondents (including all relevant communications) to comply with
those directions; (iii) whether such steps, viewed in context, amount to
“willful disobedience” necessary to make out contempt; and (iv)
related legal issues concerning the EWS eligibility dispute (including
the significance of Section 89 of the IT Act and the established EWS
policy).
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
10. The Petitioner (through learned counsel) contends that the
Tribunal erred in closing the Contempt Petition for multiple reasons. It
is urged that:
i. The Respondents failed to take into account the Income Tax
Department‟s letter dated 19.09.2024, which expressly classified the
Rs.49,599 as salary arrears for FY 2020-21, and also did not consider
the Petitioner‟s representation (dated 11.11.2024) challenging the
DoPT‟s October order on that basis. (The Petitioner further notes that
a subsequent CBDT communication dated 18.07.2025 again
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 5 of 12

reconfirmed that the amount was salary arrears.) In short, he argues,
the Respondents ignored the clearest factual clarification available.
ii. By closing the Contempt Petition, the CAT overlooked that the
Petitioner‟s mother‟s actual annual income for FY 2020-21
(excluding the arrears, which properly pertained to that year) was
below Rs.8 lakh. Therefore, even on the facts as communicated by the
ITO, the Petitioner was still “EWS” and entitled to IAS. The
Respondents‟ refusal to grant EWS benefit despite this was perverse.
iii. The Tribunal erroneously accepted the DoPT‟s speaking order
of 04.10.2024, which in substance was based on the CBDT‟s partial
response of 18.09.2024 (showing income above Rs.8 lakh and no
Section 89 claim), instead of acting on the contemporaneous
confirmation from the Pr. CIT (19.09.2024) that Rs.49,599 was salary
arrears of the prior year. This was in conflict with the directive to
verify “accounted for the relevant financial year 2020-2021”.
iv. The Tribunal‟s own earlier order of 09.05.2025 had held the
DoPT‟s 04.10.2024 order to be invalid (implicitly agreeing with the
Petitioner‟s interpretation) and gave leave to Respondents to explain
compliance. By contrast, in the Impugned Order the Tribunal shifted
stance and accepted the 04.10.2024 order. This inconsistency is said to
be unjustified.
v. The Petitioner also relied on the EWS policy (DoPT OM dated
31.01.2019), arguing that the Income & Asset Certificate is based on
actual income as per financial year and that its authenticity can only
be verified by the issuing authority (Tehsildar). He submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 6 of 12

Respondents violated this scheme by ignoring the certificate and
ITO‟s confirmation of arrears, and instead unilaterally determining
“income” from the ITR, contrary to procedure.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
11. The Respondents (represented by the learned Standing Counsel
and others) counter that the Contempt Petition was rightly closed. It is
contended that the DoPT complied in good faith with the Tribunal‟s
directions by obtaining information from the CBDT/IT department.
The CBDT‟s official communication (18.09.2024) confirmed that no
Section 89 relief had been claimed, indicating the full income was
assessed in FY 2021-22. On that basis, the DoPT was justified in
concluding that the Petitioner‟s family income for FY 2020-21 (as
certified) exceeded the limit, and the speaking order of 04.10.2024
was correctly issued.
12. The Respondents argue that any omission in verifying the
Tehsildar‟s certificate (as per OM) was not material because the
certificate was not in dispute – rather, the disputed question was the
character of the Rs.49,599. They assert there was no deliberate
defiance; on the contrary, they promptly sought and relied on
information from the Income Tax authorities. In law, contempt
proceedings cannot be used as a means to execute an order or remedy
a grievance of the Petitioner – such issues can be redressed by
ordinary writs or revision, not by contempt (Civil Contempt). In short,
they claim to have acted bona fide and within their understanding of
law, and the Contempt Petition should not have succeeded.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 7 of 12

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
13. A threshold legal question is the standard for civil contempt.
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines “civil
contempt” as “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to the court.”. Thus, to make out contempt, the
Petitioner must establish (a) a valid court order, (b) knowledge of that
order by the alleged contemnor, and (c) wilful disobedience or breach
of that order. Negligence, or an honest dispute as to interpretation,
does not ordinarily constitute contempt. As the Supreme Court has
reiterated, contempt proceedings “cannot be used to execute a decree
or implement an order” – they arise only where there is wilful refusal
to obey an order. Courts must confine their scrutiny to the explicit
terms of the order in question and the contemnor‟s conduct; technical
or good faith error in compliance will normally defeat contempt.
Moreover, contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding requiring proof
beyond reasonable doubt of deliberate violation. We bear these
principles in mind.
14. On the EWS policy side, the applicable scheme (DOPT OM
dated 31.01.2019, as amended) provides that a candidate can claim the
EWS reservation benefit only upon production of an Income and
Asset Certificate issued by prescribed authorities (e.g. District
Magistrate/Tehsildar). The OM explicitly mandates that the certificate
is based on the actual annual family income for the relevant financial
year, and that the appointing authority should verify the certificate
through the issuing authority. While the OM contemplates checking
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 8 of 12

the veracity of income from all sources, including salary, nothing in
the OM ties the determination of EWS eligibility to the specific
method of tax return filing or relief under tax statutes; the focus is on
actual income. In context, the CBDT‟s indication that no relief under
Section 89 was claimed merely reflects a tax computation detail; it is
not a substantive finding on whether the income was due in a prior
year. Section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax relief
where salary is paid in arrears, but it does not alter the fact that such
arrears were earned earlier. In other words, even if an assessee fails to
invoke Section 89, the sum remains “arrears” by nature.
15. We first examine what the Tribunal‟s order of 07.08.2024
required, and what steps were taken to comply. The 07.08.2024 order
directed the Respondents to “re-confirm” from the CBDT whether
income received by the Petitioner‟s mother (as reflected in her ITR)
was “accounted for” in FY 2020-21 or otherwise. In effect, the
direction was to ascertain whether the amounts reported were actually
attributable to that year. Upon such verification, if it were found that
the income did relate to earlier years, the Petitioner was to be granted
the EWS benefit and his allocation had to be corrected. This direction
did not prescribe any particular procedure for verification, but clearly
contemplated an inquiry into the timing of the income.
16. However, the Petitioner possessed, and did supply to the
Respondents, letters from the Income Tax authorities dated
18.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 which specifically characterized the
Rs.49,599 as salary arrears relating to FY 2020-21. The important
nuance is this: the CBDT‟s communication on 18.09.2024 (above)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 9 of 12

was apparently a general statement from the Investigation Wing,
whereas the Pr. Commissioner‟s letter of 19.09.2024 expressly
confirmed the amount as arrears of FY 2020-21. The Petitioner claims
that the Respondents had this latter information but failed to act on it.
17. The DoPT‟s speaking order (04.10.2024) was issued after
obtaining the CBDT‟s information. That order concluded that the
Petitioner‟s family income (on the face of the ITR) exceeded Rs.8
lakh, and explicitly noted the absence of any Section 89 claim. It then
held the Petitioner ineligible for EWS. The Respondents took the
position that, in absence of a Section 89 claim, the full amount was
assessable in AY 2021-22, and that they had now satisfied the
Tribunal‟s direction by “reconfirming” this to the CBDT.
18. We must ask: did the Respondents in fact “wilfully disobey” the
Tribunal‟s order of 07.08.2024? The answer turns on whether their
conduct shows deliberate non-compliance, or merely a bona fide but
incorrect interpretation. It is clear from the record that the
Respondents did approach the CBDT and sought information as
directed. They obtained a written response and acted upon it. Even if it
was arguable that the CBDT‟s response was incomplete (by not
reflecting the 19.09.2024 clarification), the Respondents did not
wilfully refuse to comply; rather, they acted on the material on record.
Crucially, contempt requires more than an arguable error – it requires
wilful disregard. Here, at most, a factual dispute was created by the
existence of the two contradictory letters. The Respondents evidently
relied on the CBDT‟s main report. In our view, such reliance – even if
mistaken – cannot by itself amount to “wilful disobedience” of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 10 of 12

Tribunal‟s order. The Tribunal‟s order did not prescribe how to weigh
or interpret multiple communications from the tax department; it
simply called for verification of the year to which the income
belonged.
19. Further, the Petitioner himself had invoked the O.A. remedies
and representations available before resorting to contempt. The CAT
in fact acknowledged on 09.05.2025 that “earlier directions had not
been complied with” and asked for an affidavit of compliance,
implicitly questioning the completeness of the Respondents‟ action.
The Respondents then submitted their reply, and the Tribunal, after
hearing them, concluded that the order had been essentially complied
with and that no contempt remained. Given that process, a final
finding of non-compliance would require proof that the Respondents
clearly flouted the direction. The mere fact that the Petitioner
disagrees with their interpretation is insufficient. Moreover, to hold
contempt, the Tribunal would have had to find that the Respondents
knew the correct answer (e.g. that the income “in fact” belonged to FY
2020-21) and nevertheless ignored it. We do not find evidence of such
conscious defiance.
20. The doctrine that civil contempt cannot serve as an enforcement
mechanism for judicial or quasi-judicial orders (and cannot be used to
execute an order) is well established. If the Petitioner‟s real grievance
is that he was wrongly deprived of the IAS seat, that issue – while
serious – falls outside contempt law.
21. Applying the principles of contempt law to these facts, we
conclude that the Respondents‟ conduct did not constitute civil
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 11 of 12

contempt. They took steps to seek clarification as directed, and acted
upon the information available. The Petitioner‟s complaint essentially
amounts to a claim that the Respondents erred in interpreting the data,
not that they wilfully ignored it. As held by the Supreme Court,
contempt proceedings are “quasi-criminal in nature” and require proof
of wilful disobedience. On the record, this element is lacking. In our
view, the Tribunal was correct to close the Contempt Petition. The
contradictory communications from the Income Tax authorities
created an ambiguity; the Respondents cannot be said to have wilfully
flouted the Tribunal‟s directions simply because, in hindsight, a
different interpretation might have yielded another outcome. The right
forum for resolving that would be the main tribunal proceedings or
this writ, not a contempt proceeding.
CONCLUSION:
22. For the foregoing reasons, we find no basis to interfere with the
Impugned Order.
23. The present Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. All the pending
applications also stand closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
APRIL 21, 2026
jai/kb
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:26:31
W.P.(C) 134/2026 Page 12 of 12