Contempt proceedings closed upon reinstatement and grant of notional benefits from the date of termination.

The Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s common order dated 23.11.2022 and the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment 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 from the date of termination to reinstatement

The Respondents filed a compliance affidavit including an order dated 30.01.2026 and a subsequent corrigendum dated 25.03.2026

This case was treated as identical to Lalit Bansal v. Vandita Kaul Ors. (C.P. No. 1026/2025), where the Respondents clarified that notional benefits would be calculated from the date of termination rather than "with immediate effect"

1. Whether the Respondents committed willful disobedience of the directions to reinstate the Petitioner and grant consequential notional benefits

2. Whether the compliance reported via the corrigendum and the undertaking to disburse benefits satisfies the judicial mandate

The court applied the principles governing contempt jurisdiction, specifically focusing on whether "willful disobedience" exists under the Contempt of Courts Act

It relied on the principle of parity in judicial orders, adopting the reasoning from a contemporary identical matter (Lalit Bansal v. Vandita Kaul)

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine of "notional benefits," which restores an employee's service status and pay fixation from the date of termination without the requirement of actual back wages for the period not worked

The Tribunal analyzed the Respondents' corrective actions, specifically the issuance of the corrigendum dated 25.03.2026, which rectified an inadvertent error in the initial compliance order

The court noted the Respondents' clarification that notional benefits would be applied retrospectively from the date of termination/restoration of services, ensuring the Petitioner was placed in the same position as if the termination had not occurred

Based on the undertaking given by the Respondents' counsel that benefits would be disbursed by the end of the month (April 2026), the Tribunal reasoned that the intent of the original order had been fulfilled

The court found that the substantial compliance reported by the Respondents negated the allegation of willful disobedience

The Contempt Petition was closed, and the notices issued to the Respondents were discharged

The Petitioner was granted liberty to agitate any surviving grievances through appropriate legal channels if necessary

No order was made as to costs