Contempt petition closed after compliance, with liberty to pursue unresolved grievances in accordance with law.

The 23 applicants were serving or retired Civilian Mechanical Transport Drivers attached to 2 Wing, Air Force, C/o 56 APO.

They instituted Contempt Petition No. 431/2026 in OA No. 4140/2025 against senior officials of the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Air Force, alleging non-compliance with directions issued in the original application.

At the hearing, none appeared for the applicants, including on the revised call.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that a speaking order had been passed and filed along with a compliance affidavit; the Tribunal took the same on record.

Whether the respondents had complied with the directions issued in OA No. 4140/2025 by passing a speaking order and filing a compliance affidavit.

Whether the contempt petition should continue after the respondents’ asserted compliance, particularly when none appeared for the applicants to oppose the submission.

Whether the applicants should retain liberty to pursue their substantive grievance in accordance with law notwithstanding closure of the contempt proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that contempt proceedings are concerned with wilful non-compliance with an existing judicial direction, and that proceedings may be closed when compliance is shown through a speaking order and compliance affidavit.

The Tribunal did not refer to any specific statutory provision, precedent, or independent legal authority in the order.

It further applied the principle that closure of contempt proceedings does not prevent an aggrieved party from challenging the substantive decision or pursuing an available remedy in accordance with law.

The respondents represented that the direction in the original application had been acted upon through a speaking order, supported by a compliance affidavit.

Since these documents were placed on record and none of the applicants appeared to contest the claim of compliance, the Tribunal found no basis to continue the contempt proceedings.

However, without adjudicating the correctness of the speaking order or finally determining the applicants’ underlying service grievance, the Tribunal preserved their liberty to agitate that grievance through appropriate legal proceedings.

The applicants were granted liberty to agitate their grievance, if so advised, in accordance with law.

Any notices issued in the contempt proceedings were discharged, all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.