Contempt petition closed as court directions for Non-Functional Upgradation complied with.

The petitioner, Mr. D.K. Gupta, filed a Contempt Petition (CP No. 665/2025) alleging non-compliance with an order dated 17.10.2024, issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4165/2015.

This prior order held that the petitioner was entitled to the High Administrative Grade (Non-Functional Selection Grade - HAG(NFSG)) benefit with effect from 15.12.2009, provided he met other relevant criteria according to the rules.

The competent authority was directed to implement this expeditiously, preferably within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

In response, the respondents filed a compliance affidavit dated 20.11.2025.

This affidavit stated that Mr. Gupta was promoted to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) on 15.12.2008.

For the vacancy year 2009-10, as of the crucial date 01.01.2009, he had only 17 days of service in SAG, thus not meeting the minimum one-year SAG service requirement.

However, by the crucial date 01.01.2010 for the vacancy year 2010-11, he had completed more than one year of service in SAG, making him eligible for consideration of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) in HAG with effect from 01.04.2010.

The respondents further cited FAQ No. 15 of DoPT OM No. AB. 14017/47/2011-Estt. (RR) dated 01.08.2012, which states that officers becoming eligible in a subsequent year are granted NFU from the 1st April of that next vacancy year.

Consequently, Mr. D.K. Gupta was granted NFU effective 01.04.2010, following consideration by a Screening Committee and approval from the Competent Authority.

An implementation order dated 21.05.2025 confirmed this, superseding a previous order dated 28.07.2017.

This order explicitly granted NFU in the HAG Scale (Rs. 67000-79000) to Mr. D.K. Gupta from 01.04.2010, citing DoP&T OMs dated 24.04.2009 and 01.07.2010, and a Ministry of Finance notification dated 16.07.2009.

Financial benefits were made subject to audit verification and recovery if necessary.

Whether the respondents have complied with the directions issued in the order dated 17.10.2024 in O.A. No. 4165/2015.

The court primarily applied the principles of compliance with judicial orders.

It assessed the respondents' actions against its previous order dated 17.10.2024 which directed the grant of HAG(NFSG) benefit subject to meeting relevant criteria.

The respondents' compliance was based on the eligibility criteria for Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) as per DoPT OM No. AB. 14017/47/2011-Estt. (RR) dated 01.08.2012, specifically FAQ No. 15, which dictates the effective date of NFU for officers becoming eligible in a subsequent year.

Further, the implementation order referenced DoP&T OMs No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt(RR) dated 24.04.2009 and 01.07.2010, and a Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Notification dated 16.07.2009, as the basis for granting NFU.

The Tribunal reviewed the compliance affidavit dated 20.11.2025 and the implementation order dated 21.05.2025 submitted by the respondents.

The original order in O.A. No. 4165/2015 directed the grant of HAG(NFSG) benefit from 15.12.2009, subject to meeting "other relevant criteria in accordance with rules".

The respondents, through their affidavit, demonstrated that upon examining Mr. Gupta's case against the applicable rules, particularly the one-year SAG service requirement for eligibility, he did not qualify for the HAG(NFSG) benefit from 15.12.2009.

Instead, his eligibility for NFU in HAG arose on 01.01.2010, making him eligible for the benefit from 01.04.2010 as per DoPT's FAQ No. 15.

The implementation order dated 21.05.2025 formally granted this benefit from 01.04.2010, explicitly referencing the relevant DoP&T OMs and Ministry of Finance notification.

Since the initial order's entitlement was conditional ("subject to meeting the other relevant criteria in accordance with rules"), and the respondents applied these rules to grant the benefit from the date Mr. Gupta became eligible, the Tribunal concluded that the directions had been complied with.

Consequently, the Contempt Petition No. 665/2025 was closed, and the notices discharged.

The Tribunal further stated that if the petitioner remained aggrieved, he was at liberty to challenge the implementation order dated 21.05.2025 in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.