Contempt proceedings stand discharged upon substantial compliance and issuance of a speaking order by respondents.

The thirty-one (31) petitioners, employees of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), filed a Contempt Petition (C.P. No. 1020/2025) alleging willful disobedience of directions previously issued by the Tribunal in Original Application (O.A.) No. 3026/2025

During the hearing on May 11, 2026, the counsel for the petitioners informed the Tribunal that the respondents had issued a speaking order dated March 19/20, 2026, in compliance with the judicial directions

1. Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by failing to adhere to the directions passed in O.A. No. 3026/2025

2. Whether the Contempt Petition should be closed in light of the subsequent compliance by the respondents

The court applied the principles governing contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Contempt of Court) Rules, 1992.

The core principle dictates that if a contemnor demonstrates substantial compliance with the court’s directions—such as by passing a reasoned "speaking order"—the grievance of contempt no longer survives and the proceedings may be discharged

The Tribunal evaluated the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel regarding the fulfillment of the court's mandate. It was observed that the respondents had passed a speaking order on March 19/20, 2026, addressing the subject matter of the O.A.

Because the petitioners’ counsel "fairly submitted" that the directions had been "fully complied with," the Tribunal found no grounds to continue the contempt proceedings, as the alleged non-compliance had been remedied

Consequently, the Contempt Petition (C.P. No. 1020/2025) was closed, and the notices issued to the alleged contemnors were discharged

All pending Miscellaneous Applications (M.A.s) were disposed of with no order as to costs