Facts
The petitioner, Tejinder Kaur, filed a contempt petition (CP No. 887/2024) alleging willful defiance of the Tribunal's directions issued in its judgment/order dated May 2, 2024, in O.A. No. 3158/2023
Source reference: p.3The original order directed the respondents to release the petitioner's accumulated savings in GPF and GISLI with interest for the period of delay from the date of retirement until payment
Source reference: p.3, para. 5.3Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed a compliance affidavit on September 9, 2025, and a revised comprehensive compliance affidavit on January 23, 2026
Source reference: p.3, para. 2The respondents, through these affidavits, stated that Rs. 32,85,961/- was credited to the petitioner's savings account on April 22, 2025, for accumulated GPF with interest
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 3Additionally, Rs. 5,200/- was released on May 19, 2025, for interest on delayed GSLI payment
Source reference: p.4, para. 3A cheque for Rs. 92,835/- dated July 25, 2024, was also issued for transfer to the petitioner’s bank account
Source reference: p.4, para. 3While the petitioner did not dispute these facts, she contended that the respondents ought to have also paid interest for the period from May 2017 to November 2018, which she claimed formed part of the accumulation referred to in the Tribunal's original order
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the respondents were in willful defiance of the Tribunal's previous order dated May 2, 2024, regarding the release of accumulated savings and interest
Source reference: p.3, para. 12. Whether the petitioner's contention regarding the non-payment of interest for the period from May 2017 to November 2018 could be adjudicated within the contempt jurisdiction
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 4Law Applied
The court applied the principle that contempt jurisdiction is intended to address willful defiance of court orders and not to adjudicate the correctness or extent of compliance once a compliance affidavit has been filed
Source reference: p.5, para. 6It implicitly relied on the established legal distinction between enforcement of an order through contempt proceedings and the adjudication of fresh disputes or alleged shortfalls in compliance, which typically require separate legal proceedings.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Tribunal noted that the respondents had filed compliance affidavits detailing the payment of accumulated GPF with interest and interest on delayed GSLI payment
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 2-3The petitioner acknowledged these payments but raised a new grievance concerning interest for a specific period (May 2017 to November 2018)
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 4The court reasoned that the petitioner's submission effectively challenged the correctness or completeness of the compliance, rather than alleging outright non-compliance or willful defiance
Source reference: p.5, para. 6Such an adjudication regarding the "correctness of the compliance" falls outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction, which is reserved for willful disobedience
Source reference: p.5, para. 6Therefore, the Tribunal could not delve into the merits of whether additional interest was due within the confines of the present contempt petition
Source reference: p.5, para. 6Holding
The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner's intent was to seek adjudication on the correctness of the compliance, which cannot be made in contempt jurisdiction
Consequently, the present contempt petition was closed, and the notices issued were discharged
Source reference: p.5, para. 7The court, however, granted the petitioner liberty to agitate her surviving grievances, if any, in accordance with law
Source reference: p.5, para. 7Original Court PDF
Tejinder Kaur v. Shri Anil Malik & Ors. CP No. 887/2024, O.A. No. 3158/2023
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in