Contempt not attracted by compliance with subsequent Supreme Court law on notional increment.

The petitioners, seven retired railway employees, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the order dated May 10, 2024, passed in O.A. No. 488 of 2024.

This order directed the respondents to grant one notional increment to the applicants (except applicant no. 7), issue revised PPO(s) accordingly, and pay arrears for three years with 6% simple interest to applicant nos. 2-6 and 8 (applicant no. 1 to get full relief) within three months.

The petitioners contended that the order had not been complied with in its true spirit, especially regarding the 6% interest.

The respondents argued that they had complied with the directions in accordance with subsequent Supreme Court rulings in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (April 11, 2023) and Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj (Diary No. 2400 of 2024).

They further cited interim orders dated September 6, 2024, and the final directions dated February 20, 2025, from the Supreme Court, which clarified the applicability and extent of benefits related to notional increments.

The Department of Personnel and Training also issued an Office Memorandum dated October 14, 2024, in line with these Supreme Court orders.

Whether the respondents' actions constitute willful and deliberate disobedience of the Tribunal's order dated May 10, 2024, warranting contempt proceedings.

The court applied Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning the Tribunal's power to punish for contempt.

It further relied on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. (April 11, 2023) and the clarifications in Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj (interim order dated September 6, 2024, and final order dated February 20, 2025), which laid down specific guidelines for the grant of notional increments for pension purposes based on the date of judgment, filing of writ petitions/applications, and non-finality of judgments in appeal.

The court also considered the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated October 14, 2024, which implemented these Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had taken steps to comply with the May 10, 2024, order, but their compliance was guided by subsequent authoritative pronouncements from the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani and M. Siddaraj.

The Supreme Court's orders, particularly those dated September 6, 2024, and February 20, 2025, provided specific conditions and limitations regarding the retrospective application and payment of notional increment benefits, particularly for third parties and those who filed applications after certain dates.

The Department of Personnel and Training's Office Memorandum further reinforced these binding directions.

The Tribunal emphasized that in contempt jurisdiction, the scope is limited to examining willful and deliberate disobedience.

It concluded that a mere dispute regarding the interpretation, calculation, or extent of benefits, especially in light of subsequent authoritative pronouncements, does not constitute civil contempt.

Given that the respondents proceeded in light of these supervening judicial directives, the Tribunal found no material to indicate willful or intentional disobedience.

The Tribunal found no wilful or intentional disobedience of its order dated May 10, 2024, because the respondents acted in reliance on the subsequent binding directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the corresponding Office Memorandum.

Applicant no. 1, if still aggrieved regarding pay fixation or consequential calculations, retains the option to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent forum.

All pending M.A.s are also disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.