CAT Dismisses Retired MTS’s Contempt Plea Over LDC Promotion, Says Officials Considered His Claim As Ordered

In the underlying OA, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim for promotion to LDC under the applicable Recruitment Rules, including the seniority-cum-suitability criterion, and to complete the exercise by the applicant’s retirement date, 31 July 2026.

The respondents issued a compliance order and a speaking order on 31 July 2026. The applicant then brought this contempt petition, alleging wilful disobedience of the OA order.

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt as wilful disobedience of a court’s judgment, direction or order.

The Tribunal relied on Director of Education, Uttaranchal v. Ved Prakash Joshi, (2005) 6 SCC 98, and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy P.V., (2006) 1 SCC 613: a contempt court examines compliance with the order, but cannot go beyond it, reconsider its correctness, or add or alter directions. A party disputing the legality or correctness of a compliance decision must seek relief through an appropriate proceeding rather than contempt.

The Tribunal construed the OA order as requiring the respondents to examine and decide the applicant’s promotion claim under the applicable Rules by 31 July 2026; it did not itself direct that promotion be granted.

The respondents issued the compliance and speaking orders on that date, thereby carrying out the required consideration. Whether the decision reached was correct was a separate matter for judicial review and could not be determined in contempt proceedings. On that basis, the Tribunal found no wilful disobedience.

It granted the applicant liberty to challenge the correctness of the speaking order dated 31 July 2026 in accordance with law; no costs were ordered.