A petitioner who accepts compliance and joins service cannot challenge it in contempt proceedings.

The petitioner’s writ petition, along with connected matters, was disposed of by order dated 3 October 2001 in SWP No. 2373/2001.

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s claim in light of the observations in the relevant Division Bench judgments, the provisions of SRO 64/1994, the applicable provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the concept of “living wage”; the decision was to be conveyed within four months.

The petitioner was also granted interim protection against termination, subject to the conditions specified in the order.

Alleging non-compliance, the petitioner instituted the present contempt petition, in which notice was issued on 22 September 2014.

During the proceedings, the respondents filed status reports stating that the Finance Department had cleared the petitioner’s case for regularisation under SRO 520 of 2017.

Consequently, Order No. 113-IND of 2019 dated 28 May 2019 was issued regularising him, and the order was given effect by the Industries and Commerce Department.

The petitioner submitted his joining report on 27 July 2019 and continued to serve pursuant to the regularisation order.

He nevertheless contended that the respondents’ compliance was not in conformity with the original writ order.

Whether the respondents had complied with the writ court’s order dated 3 October 2001 by considering and regularising the petitioner’s claim under the applicable governmental schemes and legal principles?

Whether the petitioner could challenge the adequacy or legality of the regularisation order in contempt proceedings after voluntarily accepting it and submitting his joining report pursuant to it?

The court applied the principle that a contempt proceeding is concerned with determining whether the operative directions of the original judgment have been complied with, rather than adjudicating a fresh challenge to the legality or sufficiency of the consequential administrative order.

The original writ order required consideration of the petitioner’s claim in light of the Division Bench judgment in LPASW No. 387/2002, SRO 64/1994, the applicable provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the constitutional concept of a living wage.

The court further applied the principle that a party who voluntarily accepts an order and acts upon it, including by joining service pursuant to that order, cannot subsequently challenge its conformity with the original judgment within contempt proceedings; such a challenge must be raised through an appropriate substantive proceeding.

The court found that the respondents had considered the petitioner’s case through the competent governmental process and had regularised him under SRO 520 of 2017 by Order No. 113-IND of 2019.

The petitioner accepted the regularisation order, submitted his joining report, and continued to perform his duties under it.

In these circumstances, the court held that the directions requiring consideration of his claim stood complied with.

Any contention that the regularisation order did not properly implement the original writ judgment constituted a challenge to the consequential order itself, not a basis for continuing contempt proceedings.

Since the petitioner had acted upon and accepted the order, he could not raise that challenge in contempt jurisdiction.

The contempt proceedings were closed and the rule, if any, was discharged.

However, the court clarified that disposal of the contempt petition would not prevent the petitioner from challenging the regularisation order in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised.