Applicants may seek revival of contempt proceedings if promised benefits are not disbursed.

The applicants alleged wilful non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 6 January 2026, which directed the competent authority to consider their pending representations by a reasoned order and, if they were found eligible for financial benefits, to pay those benefits within the stipulated period.

In the contempt proceedings, the respondents stated that, with the competent authority’s approval, they had passed an order dated 23 September 2026 based on recommendations dated 21 September 2026, and undertook to disburse any benefits within eight weeks.

Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s directions dated 6 January 2026, such that the contempt petition could be closed.

Whether the applicants should retain the liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition in the event of default in payment.

The Tribunal’s operative directions required the respondents to consider the applicants’ representations by a reasoned and speaking order and, if the applicants were found eligible for financial benefits, to pay those benefits within eight weeks of passing the necessary orders.

The Tribunal relied on the respondents’ stated compliance and undertaking; the order does not cite any statute, precedent, or separate legal test for contempt.

The respondents represented that they had issued the necessary order following the competent authority’s approval and undertook to pay any resulting benefits within eight weeks.

With the parties’ counsel consenting, the Tribunal accepted that statement for purposes of closing the petition, while expressly keeping open the applicants’ ability to seek revival if the respondents defaulted.

The Tribunal did not make a separate finding on the merits of the applicants’ entitlement to benefits.

The applicants were granted liberty to apply for revival of the petition in case of default.