Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked for fresh adjudication of disputes regarding the quantification of consequential benefits.

The petitioner, an Ex-Station Master, challenged disciplinary proceedings in O.A No. 180/00469/2021.

On 20.02.2025, the Tribunal directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and conclude the pending inquiry before his retirement date of 31.05.2025

Following this order, the respondents reinstated the petitioner, and a disciplinary authority order dated 02.07.2025 exonerated him of all charges, regularizing his period of absence as 'on duty'

The petitioner subsequently filed this Contempt Petition (CP), alleging that the order had not been fully complied with because certain financial benefits and financial upgradation under the MACP scheme were either withheld or incorrectly calculated

The respondents maintained that they had remitted Rs. 35,21,942/- to the petitioner after statutory deductions

1. Whether the respondents’ actions in exonerating the petitioner and regularizing his service constitute sufficient compliance with the Tribunal's directions

2. Whether the Tribunal, within its contempt jurisdiction, can adjudicate fresh disputes regarding the specific quantum of financial benefits and MACP entitlements

The Tribunal applied the principle that the scope of contempt jurisdiction is strictly limited to the enforcement of the original order's directions and cannot be extended to a "forum for fresh adjudication of the disputes"

It relied on the doctrine that once substantial compliance is demonstrated—such as the completion of an inquiry and reinstatement—ancillary or subsequent grievances regarding calculations must be addressed through fresh original proceedings

The Tribunal observed that the core directions of the Annexure P-1 order—reinstatement and conclusion of the inquiry—were fully satisfied as the petitioner was exonerated and his service regularized

While the petitioner raised grievances regarding the exact amount of arrears and the validity of a recent MACP order dated 26.03.2026, the court reasoned that these constituted fresh causes of action

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had already disbursed over Rs. 35 lakhs and were in the process of finalizing further dues

Consequently, the court found that determining the accuracy of complex financial calculations or new administrative orders exceeded the summary nature of contempt proceedings

The court directed the respondents to ensure that any remaining undisputed amounts according to their calculations be paid within three months

Crucially, the Tribunal left the petitioner’s right to challenge the calculation of benefits and the MACP order in fresh proceedings open

No costs were awarded