Contempt requires wilful disobedience; an ongoing compliance exercise warrants closure of proceedings.

The applicants filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions in OA No. 134/2021, decided on 2 March 2021.

In particular, the applicants relied on paragraphs 10-A and 10-B of that order, which required the respondents to ensure regular payment of salaries by the concerned Universities and to implement the Faculty Recharge Programme (FRP) scheme, including removal of uncertainty regarding the applicants’ service-related claims.

The respondents subsequently filed a compliance affidavit.

It stated that, on 10 July 2026, the University Grants Commission (UGC) had written to 45 Universities seeking APAR and PBAS information for assessing and reviewing the performance and service particulars of faculty members under the UGC Faculty Recharge Programme.

The UGC also stated that, in its 595th meeting, it had decided—following the recommendations of an Expert Committee—to grant the benefit of past service to the concerned faculty members.

The applicants contended that the directions in paragraph 10-B had not yet been fully implemented.

1. Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the directions issued in paragraphs 10-A and 10-B of the Tribunal’s order dated 2 March 2021 in OA No. 134/2021.

2. Whether the steps taken by the UGC, including collection of APAR/PBAS information and the decision to recognise past service, constituted sufficient progress to justify closure of the contempt proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the principle that contempt jurisdiction requires clear proof of wilful and deliberate disobedience of a judicial order; mere delay or incomplete implementation, without material establishing intentional non-compliance, does not ordinarily justify punishment for contempt.

The underlying directions in OA No. 134/2021 required the respondents to facilitate regular salary payments and ensure implementation of the FRP scheme, including resolution of the issue concerning recognition of past service for promotional purposes.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that where compliance is demonstrably in progress and the initial impediment to implementation has been removed, contempt proceedings may be closed while directing the respondents to complete the remaining exercise expeditiously.

The Tribunal found that the UGC’s communication dated 10 July 2026 to 45 Universities demonstrated that the process of collecting the APAR and PBAS records necessary to assess the applicants’ eligibility and service particulars had commenced.

It further noted that the UGC’s 595th-meeting decision to grant the benefit of past service removed the principal impediment previously affecting consideration of the applicants’ promotional claims.

Although the directions had not been fully implemented, the compliance affidavit showed substantive and continuing steps toward implementation.

In the absence of material proving wilful disobedience, the Tribunal held that the requirements for maintaining contempt proceedings were not satisfied.

The respondents were, however, directed to complete the compliance exercise expeditiously, bring it to its logical conclusion, and ensure that no further impediment was caused in extending any benefits to which the applicants might be found entitled under the applicable rules and the directions in OA No. 134/2021.

The notices were discharged and CP No. 242/2021 was closed.