A reasoned order complying with tribunal directions does not constitute contempt merely because it is allegedly erroneous.

The petitioner alleged non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 26 February 2024 in OA No. 794/2014, whereby the respondents were directed to consider his comprehensive representation regarding regularisation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days.

The petitioner claimed to have worked as Casual Labour under the PWI, Chitrakoot Dham Karvi, from 31 December 1985 to 31 January 1986 and from 4 February 1986 to 4 September 1986.

The respondents rejected his claim by order dated 30 March 2024, stating that the relevant Casual Labour service records were unavailable.

The petitioner contended that the respondents, being custodians of the service records, could not deny regularisation merely because the records were unavailable, relying on an Allahabad High Court decision concerning the department’s responsibility to maintain service records.

The respondents maintained that the Tribunal’s limited direction had been complied with through the reasoned and speaking order dated 30 March 2024.

Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the Tribunal’s order dated 26 February 2024 by rejecting the petitioner’s representation on the ground that the relevant service records were unavailable.

Whether the correctness or legality of the respondents’ decision on regularisation could be examined in contempt proceedings.

Contempt proceedings are confined to determining whether there has been wilful disobedience of the court’s order and cannot be used to adjudicate the correctness or wrongness of the order passed in purported compliance.

It relied on Union of India v. Subedar Devassy P.V., AIR 2006 SC 909, for the rule that “rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings”.

The Tribunal also considered the petitioner’s reliance on the principle stated by the Allahabad High Court that the department is responsible for the safe custody and upkeep of service records and cannot shift the burden of missing records onto the employee.

The operative rule in the present proceedings, however, was whether the respondents had complied with the specific direction to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal examined the original order and found that it did not direct automatic regularisation; it only granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation and directed the respondents to consider and decide it through a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents had passed the order dated 30 March 2024 on the basis of the documents available to them, rejecting the claim because the petitioner had not established through further documentary evidence that he had worked during the claimed periods.

Although the petitioner challenged the respondents’ reliance on the non-availability of service records, that challenge concerned the merits and correctness of the compliance order rather than wilful disobedience of the Tribunal’s direction.

Applying Subedar Devassy P.V., the Tribunal held that it could not reassess the interpretation or merits of the respondents’ decision in contempt jurisdiction.

Their decision could not be characterised as wilful disobedience merely because the petitioner considered it legally or factually incorrect.

The contempt proceedings were therefore dropped and closed, and the respondents were discharged from the notice of contempt.