Contempt jurisdiction cannot adjudicate the correctness or adequacy of orders passed in purported compliance with judicial directions.

The petitioner, an Ex-Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 03.10.2024

The original order quashed previous impugned orders and directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant with consequential benefits, conduct a re-medical examination, and, if found unfit for his original post, adjust him to a suitable alternative post within three months

The respondents filed a compliance affidavit stating that the petitioner underwent a re-medical examination and was subsequently appointed to the post of Technician-III (Level-2) in the Carriage and Wagon Department vide order dated 24.02.2026

The respondents further noted that the original order dated 03.10.2024 is currently under challenge before the Hon’ble High Court

Whether the respondents’ actions constitute a willful or deliberate disobedience of the Tribunal’s directions dated 03.10.2024

Whether the adequacy or correctness of an order passed in purported compliance can be adjudicated within contempt jurisdiction

The Tribunal applied the principle that contempt jurisdiction is limited to verifying compliance and does not extend to examining the correctness or adequacy of the compliance order

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, which held that once an order is passed in purported compliance, it cannot be re-examined in contempt proceedings

the power to punish for contempt must be exercised with extreme caution and only in cases of clear and willful disobedience

The Tribunal observed that the respondents had taken substantive steps to implement the order dated 03.10.2024 by conducting a re-medical examination and issuing a fresh appointment order for an alternative post on 24.02.2026

Since the respondents acted in "purported compliance" with the directions, the Tribunal reasoned that any lingering grievance regarding the manner of compliance or the suitability of the new post does not amount to "willful disobedience"

The Tribunal noted that its jurisdiction in a contempt matter is restricted; it cannot go behind the merits of the new order passed by the authorities

as the primary directions (medical test and adjustment) were met, the legal threshold for contempt was not satisfied

The contempt proceedings were dropped, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged

The Tribunal granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the manner of compliance or the fresh appointment order through appropriate legal remedies

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of with no order as to costs