Contempt proceedings closed upon compliance with directions for reinstatement and grant of notional benefits.

The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s common order dated 09.02.2023 and the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 30.07.2025

The original order directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within four weeks and granted consequential benefits on a strictly notional basis

During the pendency of the CP, the respondents filed an affidavit enclosing a compliance order dated 30.01.2026.

This was followed by a corrigendum dated 25.03.2026 to rectify an inadvertent error regarding the effective date of consequential benefits

1. Whether the respondents’ actions in reinstating the petitioner and issuing the corrigendum for notional benefits constituted substantial compliance with the Tribunal's directions

2. Whether the delay or errors in the initial compliance order amounted to willful disobedience

The Tribunal applied the principle of judicial parity, adopting the reasoning from a factually identical matter, Lalit Bansal v. Vandita Kaul & Ors. (C.P. No. 1026/2025)

The court followed the standard that contempt proceedings are intended to ensure the implementation of judicial orders; once substantial compliance (reinstatement and restoration of benefits) is demonstrated and undertakings for disbursement are given, the contempt notices may be discharged

The Tribunal examined the respondents' compliance efforts and noted that the petitioner had already been reinstated in service effective from the date of his termination

The respondents admitted to an initial "inadvertent error" in the compliance order dated 30.01.2026, which was subsequently corrected by a corrigendum dated 25.03.2026

This corrigendum clarified that notional benefits would be provided from the date of the petitioner's restoration of services (the original termination date) rather than with "immediate effect"

Furthermore, the respondents provided an undertaking to the court that the actual disbursement of these notional benefits would be completed by the end of April 2026

Based on these factors, the Tribunal found that the "willful" element required for contempt was absent as the respondents had moved to fulfill the order's substance

Consequently, the Contempt Petition was closed, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged

The Tribunal granted the petitioner liberty to agitate any surviving grievances in accordance with the law

No order as to costs was made