Contempt proceedings cannot continue where respondents comply by passing the directed reasoned orders.

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 11 December 2025 in O.A. No. 4726/2025.

In that order, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s pending representation dated 15 September 2024 and pass a reasoned and speaking order concerning her entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits, as well as the grant of one notional increment with effect from 1 May 2023, within eight weeks of receipt of the certified order.

The respondents submitted that they had complied by issuing a detailed communication and order dated 21 August 2026 concerning the notional increment and consideration of 50% of the petitioner’s past service for ACP/MACP purposes, in addition to an order dated 17 April 2026.

The petitioner opposed closure, contending that the respondents had not specified the dates from which ACP/MACP benefits were granted and that the benefits had not actually accrued to her.

1. Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 11 December 2025 by taking reasoned decisions on the petitioner’s claim for a notional increment and ACP/MACP benefits.

2. Whether the contempt petition should remain pending where the petitioner’s grievance concerned the correctness or completeness of the subsequent communication rather than non-compliance with the original order.

The Tribunal applied the principle that contempt jurisdiction is concerned with wilful disobedience of a subsisting judicial direction and does not ordinarily extend to adjudicating the correctness or merits of a decision taken in purported compliance.

The operative direction in the original proceedings required the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate, reasoned and speaking orders; it did not itself grant ACP/MACP benefits or decide the petitioner’s substantive entitlement.

Where an aggrieved party remains dissatisfied with the decision taken pursuant to such a direction, the appropriate remedy is to challenge that decision before the competent forum in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that its earlier order expressly refrained from examining the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits and the notional increment.

Its direction was limited to requiring the respondents to consider those claims and issue appropriate orders.

Since the respondents had issued communications and orders dealing with both the notional increment from 1 May 2023 and the petitioner’s representation concerning ACP/MACP benefits, the essential direction had been complied with.

The petitioner’s objection that the dates and actual accrual of benefits had not been properly specified raised a grievance regarding the substance or adequacy of the subsequent decision, not a sufficient basis to continue contempt proceedings.

The Tribunal therefore left the petitioner at liberty to pursue an appropriate legal remedy against the communication dated 21 August 2026.

C.P. No. 218/2026 was accordingly closed, the notices were discharged, and the petitioner was granted liberty to agitate any remaining grievance in accordance with law.