Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to amplify or add new directions to the original judgment.

The respondents, engaged as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) since 1990, sought regularization of their services based on the analogy of similarly situated employees

On 16th August 2023, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No. 639/2023 directed the petitioners to consider the respondents' claims for regularization in light of previous orders and law

In purported compliance, the petitioners issued a consideration order dated 3rd August 2024, rejecting the claim

The respondents filed a contempt petition (CP No. 169/2023). The Tribunal, via the impugned order dated 6th February 2025, set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration by applying specific case laws not mentioned in the original judgment

The Union of India challenged this direction as an overreach of contempt jurisdiction

1. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its contempt jurisdiction by adding new directions and legal mandates to the original judgment while hearing a contempt petition

2. Whether the consideration order passed by the petitioners was in strict compliance with the original directions issued in OA No. 639/2023

The court applied the principle limiting the scope of contempt jurisdiction, asserting that a court sitting in contempt cannot "amplify" or make "additions" to the directions originally passed in the final judgment

It further applied the principle of administrative compliance, which requires an authority to pass a "speaking and reasoned order" that strictly adheres to the specific "analogy" and "previous orders" (specifically the order dated 17.05.2023) mandated by the adjudicating body

The High Court observed that the Tribunal's role in a contempt proceeding is to ensure compliance with the original decree, not to expand its scope

By issuing a Mandamus to reconsider the claim in light of specific case laws discussed for the first time in the contempt order, the Tribunal traveled beyond its jurisdiction

However, the High Court also found that the petitioners' consideration order dated 03.08.2024 failed to strictly comply with the original judgment of 16.08.2023, as it did not properly address the analogy of similarly situated persons or the order dated 17.05.2023

Therefore, while the Tribunal’s expansion of the legal requirements was improper, its decision to set aside the faulty consideration order was justified

The court held that while the petitioners must reconsider the respondents' claims, they are only bound to do so strictly in terms of the original judgment dated 16th August 2023 (OA No. 639/2023) and the order dated 17th May 2023

The Tribunal's additional directions regarding other case laws were set aside

Related petitions WP(C) 3069/2025 and WP(C) 163/2026 were disposed of on the same terms