Contempt proceedings cannot enforce promotion benefits not directed in the original order.

In O.A. No. 553/2014, the Tribunal directed a review DPC to consider Dr. Tandon for proforma promotion by considering his 2001–02 ACR instead of his 2006–07 ACR, and, if found eligible, to grant promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted and revise his pension and consequential benefits.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the respondents’ challenge to that order on 1 July 2024.

In the contempt proceedings, the respondents stated that Dr. Tandon had been promoted to SAG with effect from 29 October 2008 and that pensionary and other financial benefits had been paid, with the revised pension arrears still being processed through the CPAO.

Dr. Tandon maintained that the order remained unimplemented because he had not received HAG promotion or all revised pension arrears.

Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s order of 11 May 2023 by granting Dr. Tandon proforma SAG promotion and consequential benefits.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to grant HAG promotion, and the outstanding pension arrears, amounted to non-compliance warranting continuation of contempt proceedings.

Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the statutory basis for the contempt petition.

The operative direction in the underlying order required a review DPC to assess the applicant for proforma promotion using his 2001–02 ACR instead of his 2006–07 ACR, and to grant promotion and consequential pensionary benefits if he was found eligible.

The High Court upheld that direction, finding no basis to interfere.

The Tribunal treated the scope of the original direction as controlling: it did not direct HAG promotion or require the 2007–08 ACR to be disregarded.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had implemented the specific direction by promoting Dr. Tandon to SAG from 29 October 2008.

It rejected the contention that HAG promotion was also required, because the original order concerned consideration for proforma promotion on the basis of the 2001–02 ACR instead of the 2006–07 ACR, and contained no direction concerning HAG or the 2007–08 ACR.

The respondents had stated that the 2007–08 ACR was below benchmark and that they had initiated the process for payment of the remaining pension arrears by sending the revised PPO to the CPAO.

On that record, the Tribunal concluded that its order had been complied with.

It closed the contempt proceedings, discharged the notices issued to the respondents, and disposed of any pending miscellaneous application.