Contempt proceedings cannot re-adjudicate merits or enforce discriminatory compliance; fresh remedies required.

The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of an order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 764 of 2013 and connected matters.

The respondents claimed substantial compliance with the directions, referring to a compliance affidavit.

The petitioners contended that compliance was not made for three individuals (Aroon Kumar Saxena, Ajay Amar, and Ajit Kumar Saxena) regarding the payment of arrears from 01.01.2016, despite PPOs being issued.

They argued that other similarly placed petitioners received these arrears.

The original application's operative portion instructed respondents to consider extending the benefit of financial upgradation of MACP to eligible applicants.

This was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 05.12.2022, which stated that if some respondents were not eligible, the petitioners (Union of India) were not bound to extend the benefit.

1. Whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated 15.11.2018, passed in Original Application No. 764 of 2013, by substantially complying with its directions?

2. Whether the issue of alleged non-payment of arrears for specific petitioners (Aroon Kumar Saxena, Ajay Amar, and Ajit Kumar Saxena) constitutes willful disobedience in a contempt proceeding, or if it amounts to a fresh cause of action?

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that contempt proceedings are limited to determining willful disobedience of an unambiguous court order and cannot be used for re-adjudication of the merits of the original case.

It relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in J S Parihar Vs Ganpat Duggar And Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 12494-96 of 1996, dated 11.09.1996), which held that once an order has been passed by the government based on court directions, if it does not conform to the directions, it creates a fresh cause of action for redressal in an appropriate forum, rather than constituting willful violation in contempt proceedings.

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the compliance affidavit, noting that the respondents claimed substantial compliance.

Applying the ratio of J S Parihar, the Tribunal emphasized that the scope of contempt proceedings is strictly limited to proving willful disobedience.

The original direction was to "consider extending the benefit".

The High Court's order further clarified that if petitioners (referring to the Union of India) found certain respondents (referring to the employees) ineligible for the benefit, they were not bound to extend it.

Given this, the Tribunal found that the respondents had made "substantial compliance" with the direction to "consider the case".

The alleged non-payment of arrears for specific individuals, even if appearing discriminatory or incorrect, was deemed to constitute a fresh cause of action to be pursued in a fresh Original Application or execution application, not in a contempt petition, as deciding such issues would require re-adjudicating the merits of the original OA.

Therefore, the proceedings of the instant contempt petition are hereby closed, and the notices are discharged.

The petitioners (Aroon Kumar Saxena, Ajay Amar, and Ajit Kumar Saxena) who are aggrieved by the compliance are directed to challenge the same through a fresh Original Application or an execution application, as such matters cannot be decided in a contempt petition due to its limited scope.