Contempt petition closed upon speaking-order compliance, with liberty to challenge that order in fresh proceedings.

The petitioners instituted Contempt Petition No. 454/2026 in O.A. No. 3777/2025 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 26 September 2025.

During the hearing, the respondents submitted that they had passed a detailed speaking order dated 25 May 2026 in purported compliance with the earlier order and produced a copy before the Tribunal, which was taken on record.

Counsel for the petitioners acknowledged receipt of the speaking order and stated that the petitioners intended to challenge it by filing a fresh Original Application.

Whether the Contempt Petition should continue after the respondents passed a speaking order stated to be in compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier directions.

Whether the petitioners could be permitted to challenge the speaking order dated 25 May 2026 in accordance with law.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a contempt or compliance petition need not be kept pending where the respondents have taken the action directed by the Tribunal and the petitioners’ remaining grievance concerns the legality or merits of the consequential order.

Such a challenge must be pursued through appropriate substantive proceedings, including a fresh Original Application, rather than through continuation of the compliance proceedings.

The respondents’ production of the speaking order dated 25 May 2026 demonstrated that they had taken a decision pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 26 September 2025.

Since the petitioners had received that order and themselves indicated that they intended to challenge it in fresh proceedings, the Tribunal considered that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Contempt Petition pending.

The Tribunal therefore distinguished between compliance with its earlier direction and the petitioners’ proposed challenge to the merits or legality of the subsequent speaking order.

The order did not adjudicate the validity of the speaking order or the underlying substantive claims of the petitioners.