CONTEMPT PETITION CANNOT ADDRESS DISAGREEMENTS OVER INTEREST CALCULATION, ONLY WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE.

The applicant, G. Karthikeyan, a retired Private Secretary, filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging wilful disobedience of an order dated 05.12.2019 issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 861/2017.

The original order directed the respondent to pay interest at the bank rate (simple interest) for the fixed deposit at the relevant point of time for the belated payment of retiral dues from the date of vacation of interim injunction until the actual payment date, within three months of receiving the order.

Subsequently, the respondent passed an order dated 27.06.2022, calculating interest amounts of Rs. 27,292/- on DCRG and Rs. 50,304/- on Leave Encashment, totaling Rs. 77,596/-, which were subsequently paid to the applicant.

The applicant filed the present CP, contending that the interest amount was not properly calculated.

Whether the respondent wilfully disobeyed the Tribunal's order dated 05.12.2019 by allegedly failing to properly calculate the interest amount on belated retirement dues.

The court's primary consideration was the definition and scope of "wilful disobedience" in the context of contempt proceedings.

The standard for contempt requires an intentional disregard or defiance of a court's order, as opposed to a dispute over the quantum or method of compliance.

While not explicitly cited as specific legal provisions, contempt proceedings inherently involve the principles of rendering justice and ensuring judicial orders are respected and carried out faithfully.

The Tribunal considered the respondent's actions in response to its earlier order.

It noted that the respondent had indeed passed an order calculating the interest amounts and subsequently paid them to the applicant.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant's grievance was not about the non-payment of interest *per se*, but rather a dispute regarding the correctness of the interest calculation.

The court differentiated between wilful disobedience, which is required for a contempt petition, and a mere dissatisfaction with the calculation of interest.

It concluded that a difference in interest calculations does not constitute wilful disobedience of a Tribunal's order.

The Contempt Petition was closed.

The applicant was granted liberty to redress his grievance regarding the interest calculation through an appropriate method, rather than a Contempt Petition.