Contempt proceedings terminate upon release of benefits and undertaking to extend relief to similarly situated applicants.

The petitioner, a retired Group Head from the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), filed a contempt petition alleging non-implementation of the Tribunal's order dated 28.05.2018 in O.A. No. 137/2016

Following the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.12.2025 (Diary No. 62073/2025), the Department of Space decided to implement the Tribunal’s orders in O.A. Nos. 137/2016, 867/2016, and 564/2018

While the benefits for the petitioner in O.A. 137/2016 were released via a communication dated 04.03.2026, the benefits for the applicants in the other two O.As remained pending subject to concurrence from the Department of Expenditure

The matter was brought before the Tribunal to determine if the contempt proceedings should be closed

1. Whether the respondents complied with the Tribunal's directions in O.A. No. 137/2016 and if the contempt petition has consequently become infructuous.

2. Whether the undertaking by the respondents to grant benefits to applicants in related O.As (867/2016 and 564/2018) is sufficient to close the current implementation proceedings.

The Tribunal primarily operated under its contempt jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its previous orders.

It relied on the administrative principle that once a legal challenge to a judicial order is exhausted—specifically after the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s order in SLP Diary No. 62073/2025—the state is bound to implement the order in letter and spirit.

The court also considered the common judgment of the High Court of Kerala in OPs(CAT) Nos. 199/2018, 220/2018, and 313/2019, which emphasized the necessity of granting benefits to all similarly situated petitioners

The Tribunal analyzed the respondents' compliance based on two additional affidavits.

It noted that the specific benefits regarding the applicant in O.A. 137/2016 had already been released, as evidenced by Annexure R1(E) and confirmed by the Standing Counsel

Regarding the other related O.As (867/2016 and 564/2018), the Tribunal examined the affidavit of the Secretary, Department of Space, which confirmed that the Department had decided to implement the orders subject to approval from the Department of Expenditure

The Tribunal found that the process for implementation had been formally initiated via ID Note No. A.12020/5/2018-1 dated 13.12.2025

By recording the respondents' submission that the matter is pending only for financial concurrence, the Tribunal reasoned that the substantial steps taken rendered the continued pursuit of the contempt petition unnecessary

The Tribunal recorded the respondents' undertaking and the Chairman's submission regarding the ongoing implementation for the other O.As

The Contempt Petition and M.A. were closed with no order as to costs