Facts
The applicants filed a Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of the Tribunal's order dated 18.07.2024 in OA No. 2765/2024
Source reference: p. 3The original order directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicants' pending representation dated 25.03.2023 regarding the grant of Non-Functional Scale (NFS) / Grade Pay of ₹5400/- upon completion of four years in Grade Pay ₹4800/-
Source reference: p. 3In response, the respondents passed a speaking order dated 10.12.2025, rejecting the claim after consultation with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Defence (Defence Finance)
Source reference: p. 3-4The respondents contended that there is no provision for NFSG in Grade Pay ₹5400/- for the Subordinate Engineering Cadre of MES under existing policies and that such benefits are not admissible through ACP/MACP
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the respondents’ issuance of a speaking order rejecting the claim constitutes substantial compliance with the Tribunal’s directions dated 18.07.2024
Source reference: p. 42. Whether the correctness or legality of a speaking order passed in compliance with judicial directions can be examined under contempt jurisdiction
Source reference: p. 4-5Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the settled principle of contempt jurisprudence which mandates that once a court’s direction to "consider and decide" a representation by passing a reasoned order has been fulfilled, the merits, correctness, or legality of that subsequent order cannot be scrutinized within the limited scope of a contempt petition
Source reference: p. 4-5The court relied on the doctrine that "willful disobedience" ceases to exist once the procedural direction of the court is met, and any further grievance against the outcome of that consideration constitutes a fresh cause of action
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the scope of the original order dated 18.07.2024 was restricted to the "consideration and disposal" of the applicants' representation through a reasoned and speaking order
Source reference: p. 4It noted that the respondents had complied with this specific direction by passing the order dated 10.12.2025
Source reference: p. 3The Tribunal examined the respondents' Status Report, which detailed the consultative process with the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Defence, explaining the technical grounds for the rejection—namely, the lack of policy provision for the Subordinate Engineering Cadre and the inapplicability of Grade Pay ₹5400/- to service attained via MACP
Source reference: p. 3-4The Tribunal reasoned that since the respondents had applied their minds and issued a formal decision, the charge of "willful disobedience" could not be sustained
Source reference: p. 4It further clarified that the applicant's arguments regarding the merits of the rejection or the absence of the Ministry of Finance as a party in the original OA were irrelevant to contempt proceedings
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Tribunal held that no case for contempt was made out as the respondents had complied with the direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order
The Contempt Petition was dismissed, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged
Source reference: p. 5The Tribunal noted that if the applicants are aggrieved by the legality of the speaking order dated 10.12.2025, their appropriate remedy is to challenge the same through fresh legal proceedings before the appropriate forum
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
ALL INDIA MES CIVILIAN ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION ACTING THROUGH IT S GENERAL SECRETARY SH ARVIND KUMARvsSH GIRDHAR ARAMANE SECRETARY M O DEFENCE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in