A pay-scale deviation from an explicit court direction may warrant contempt scrutiny for wilful disobedience.

In OA 2416/2016, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) declared the petitioners entitled to a second financial upgradation in PB-3 with Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after 24 years of regular service, and directed the respondents to implement that relief.

The respondents initially issued an order on 3 April 2025 fixing the petitioners’ pay in PB-3, but by a subsequent order dated 23 September 2025 revised the fixation to a scale beginning at ₹13,450, which the parties accepted fell in PB-2.

The petitioners initiated contempt proceedings, alleging that the revised order contravened the CAT’s direction.

The CAT dismissed the contempt petition on the ground that the correctness of pay fixation could not be examined in contempt proceedings.

The petitioners challenged that dismissal before the High Court.

1. Whether the CAT was justified in dismissing the contempt petition solely because the dispute concerned the correctness of pay fixation under the ACP/MACP Scheme.

2. Whether the respondents’ revised order fixing pay in PB-2, rather than PB-3, could constitute willful or contumacious disobedience of the CAT’s direction.

Contempt requires disobedience that is willful or contumacious; every instance of non-compliance does not warrant punishment.

Under J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291, contempt proceedings are not ordinarily the forum to review the merits of a subsequent administrative decision or to issue fresh substantive directions; such a decision may give rise to a fresh cause of action for judicial review.

However, where an alleged breach concerns a clear court direction, the contempt court may examine whether the subsequent action contravenes it and, if so, whether the breach is sufficiently willful or contumacious to justify contempt proceedings.

The CAT’s direction expressly entitled the petitioners to the second upgradation in PB-3, while the later order placed their pay in PB-2; the respondents’ counsel acknowledged that the revised scale fell in PB-2.

The High Court considered that this apparent departure presented a focused question of compliance, not necessarily a complex pay-fixation dispute requiring a fresh original proceeding.

J.S. Parihar did not preclude the Tribunal from determining whether the later order contravened the specific direction and whether any contravention was willful or contumacious.

The High Court left that determination to the Tribunal.

It expressed no view on whether the revised pay-fixation order was contemptuous, leaving the Tribunal to determine both whether disobedience occurred and whether it was willful or contumacious.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30 October 2026, and the writ petition was allowed to that extent without costs.