After Retired Officer’s Disability-Pension Order Was Complied With, P&H HC Sets Aside Direction To Recover ₹3 Lakh Contempt Costs From Salaries

The respondent obtained an Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability pension, which the High Court upheld on 21 August 2025 and directed the appellants to implement within four weeks.

In contempt proceedings, the Single Judge imposed costs of ₹3 lakh and directed their recovery equally from the appellants’ salaries.

The appellants said they had issued a sanction letter on 5 May 2026 and a Pension Payment Order (PPO) on 8 May 2026, filed a compliance affidavit, and paid the costs by demand draft.

On 29 May 2026, the Contempt Court recorded compliance, held that contempt had been purged, and discharged the rule.

The appellants appealed the orders imposing and directing recovery of costs.

Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the role of a petitioner in contempt proceedings is to bring alleged disobedience of a court’s directions to the court’s notice; whether disobedience occurred and whether the alleged contemnor should be proceeded against fall within the Contempt Court’s domain.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that, where the substantive directions have been complied with and the Contempt Court has found contempt purged, the proceedings may be brought to a close where no useful purpose would be served by continuing them.

The Division Bench noted that the writ directions had been implemented through the sanction order and PPO, and that the imposed costs had been paid.

The Contempt Court had already recorded compliance, held that contempt was purged, and discharged the rule.

In those circumstances, the Court found no useful purpose in prolonging the proceedings and set aside the direction for recovery of the costs from the appellants’ salaries.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.