CAT Closes NCB Retirees’ Contempt Case, Says They May Pursue Gratuity And Leave-Encashment Calculation Disputes Separately

The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Tribunal’s order dated 11 November 2024.

That order directed the respondent to refund any amount wrongly recovered from the petitioners’ retiral dues, pay their retirement/service benefits—including gratuity and ex gratia—and comply within two months of receiving a certified copy, with interest at GPF rates for delay.

The petitioners alleged unequal treatment and disputed the calculation and payment of gratuity, ex gratia and leave encashment, including the applicable rules and interest for delayed leave encashment.

The respondent relied on its compliance affidavit and stated that the 7th CPC had been implemented on 9 March 2026; it submitted that any dispute about the applicable rules or calculation constituted a separate cause of action.

The Tribunal considered the compliance affidavit and the directions in the original order.

The Tribunal’s assessment was governed by its directions in the order dated 11 November 2024: any amount wrongly recovered from retiral dues was to be refunded; retirement/service benefits, including gratuity and ex gratia, were to be paid under the relevant rules; and non-compliance within two months of receipt of a certified copy would attract interest at GPF rates until payment.

The present order did not identify or apply any separate statute or precedent.

It treated disputes over calculation or the applicability of relevant rules as matters that could be pursued separately in accordance with law, rather than resolved in this contempt petition.

The Tribunal considered the respondent’s compliance affidavit alongside the original directions and the petitioners’ allegations about differential treatment, calculation and delayed payment.

It closed the contempt petition while preserving the petitioners’ ability to pursue any unresolved grievance concerning calculation or the applicability of the relevant rules through an appropriate legal route.

The order does not set out a separate finding on each disputed calculation or expressly determine whether any particular payment breached the original directions.

It left the petitioners at liberty to agitate any surviving grievances concerning calculation or the applicability of relevant rules in accordance with law; it made no order as to costs.