Facts
The present Contempt Petition (CP) was filed alleging willful defiance of directions issued by the Tribunal in an order dated 04.09.2024 in O.A. No. 4524/2018
Source reference: p.2The original order had set aside an impugned order dated 22.11.2016 and an appellate order dated 29.05.2018, granting the applicant all consequential benefits, including the opening of a sealed cover, with compliance to be completed within 10 weeks
Source reference: p.2This order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi via W.P.(C) No. 4453/2025, which was dismissed on 08.05.2025.
Source reference: p.2Subsequently, an SLP (C) (Diary No. 57560/2025) was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court and dismissed on 05.12.2025
Source reference: p.2The respondents filed a compliance affidavit on 14.01.2026, followed by an additional compliance affidavit on 07.03.2026
Source reference: p.2The respondents stated that the petitioner had been reinstated in service from the date of dismissal and promoted notionally to Executive Engineer (Civil) based on a DPC recommendation from a sealed cover, effective 03.08.2012
Source reference: p.3However, further promotion to Superintendent Engineer (Civil) and Chief Engineer (Civil) was withheld due to two pending disciplinary proceedings for major penalties (charge Memo dated 04.09.2013 and 17.08.2015), as per a Vigilance Report dated 11.02.2026
Source reference: p.3An order dated 07.03.2026 regularized/refixed the petitioner's pay, and arrears were promised within eight weeks
Source reference: p.3-4The petitioner, appearing in person, contended that the non-grant of further promotions was contrary to various judgments and DoP&T instructions
Source reference: p.4Issues
Whether the respondents have willfully defied the directions of the Tribunal contained in the order dated 04.09.2024
Source reference: p.2Whether the non-grant of further promotion to the rank of Superintendent Engineer (Civil) and Chief Engineer (Civil) can be adjudicated in the present contempt proceedings
Source reference: p.5Whether any alleged illegality in the pay fixation order dated 07.03.2026 gives rise to a fresh cause of action
Source reference: p.5Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle that issues related to non-compliance or fresh grievances, such as non-grant of further promotions or alleged illegality in pay fixation, cannot be decided in contempt proceedings but require original proceedings
Source reference: p.5It drew support from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in J.S. Parihar vs Ganpat Duggar & Ors AIR 1997 SC 113, which likely establishes the scope and limitations of contempt jurisdiction, particularly the principle that a contempt court cannot go beyond the order of which enforcement is sought
Source reference: p.5Reasoning
The Tribunal acknowledged that the respondents had substantially complied with the primary directions by reinstating the petitioner and granting the first promotional benefit to Executive Engineer (Civil) as per the sealed cover recommendation
Source reference: p.2-3, p.4-5The main contention arose from the withholding of further promotions due to pending disciplinary proceedings and the correctness of the pay fixation order
Source reference: p.3-4The Tribunal reasoned that while the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with these aspects, such grievances constitute a fresh cause of action or require adjudication through original proceedings rather than being amenable to resolution within the scope of a contempt petition
Source reference: p.5Relying on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court in J.S. Parihar vs Ganpat Duggar & Ors, the Tribunal concluded that a contempt court's role is to ensure compliance with the original order, not to address subsequent disputes or fresh grievances that arise from the implementation of that order or new administrative actions
Source reference: p.5Therefore, the issues concerning further promotions and pay fixation were deemed outside the purview of the current contempt proceedings
Source reference: p.5Holding
The Contempt Petition (CP) was closed, and notices were discharged
The Tribunal held that the respondents had substantially complied with the directions for reinstatement and promotion to Executive Engineer (Civil)
Source reference: p.4-5It was clarified that any illegality found in the pay fixation order dated 07.03.2026 would give rise to a fresh cause of action, and any grievance regarding the non-grant of further promotion to Superintendent Engineer (Civil) and Chief Engineer (Civil) could only be agitated in original proceedings, not in the present CP
Source reference: p.5The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for revival of the CP via an MA if the respondents fail to disburse the admissible arrears within eight weeks from 10.03.2026
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
O.P Gaud v. Sh. Kaushal Raj Sharma & Anr. CP No. 671/2025 in O.A. No. 4524/2018
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in