Current office-holders must be impleaded to report complete compliance with subsisting tribunal directions.

The applicant, Dr. A.K. Singh, joined the Medical Stores Organisation under the Directorate General of Health Services in 1982. He alleged that his in-situ promotions were withheld because of departmental and criminal proceedings, although he was subsequently exonerated and the criminal proceedings were dropped. He retired on 31 July 2010

Pursuant to earlier directions, he was granted retrospective in-situ promotion as Assistant Director General with effect from 1 October 2000. He thereafter filed OA No. 1794/2024 seeking, inter alia, promotion to the post of Deputy Director General

The Tribunal allowed the OA on 28 May 2025 and directed the respondents to forward the promotion proposal to the UPSC, based on the available ACRs, within six weeks of receipt of the certified order. The UPSC was directed to consider the proposal in accordance with law

The applicant alleged that the certified order was served on 12 June 2025, but that the proposal was not forwarded within the prescribed period and that no extension or stay had been obtained

In the contempt proceedings, the respondents stated that they had processed and forwarded the applicant’s proposal for in-situ promotion from S-III to S-IV level and that the UPSC had accepted it by letter dated 2 July 2026

The Tribunal also noted that the description of Respondent No. 3 did not reflect the current Secretary of the UPSC and that the current incumbents of the Director General, DGHS, and Secretary, UPSC, were required to report compliance

1. Whether the respondents’ delay in forwarding and completing the applicant’s promotion proposal constituted wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Tribunal’s order dated 28 May 2025?

2. Whether the respondents had substantially or completely complied with the directions requiring consideration and grant of the applicant’s in-situ promotion to the post of Deputy Director General?

3. Whether the current incumbents of the offices of Director General, DGHS, and Secretary, UPSC, were required to be impleaded to secure effective and complete compliance?

The Tribunal applied the principle that contempt is established only where non-compliance with a binding judicial direction is wilful, deliberate, and intentional, rather than merely technical or procedural

It further proceeded on the principle that a judicial order remains binding unless stayed or set aside by a superior court, and that compliance must be effectively and completely reported by the authorities responsible for implementation

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order; the directions were issued in the exercise of the Tribunal’s contempt and compliance jurisdiction

The applicant established that the six-week period for forwarding the proposal had expired without timely compliance and that the order had neither been stayed nor set aside

However, the respondents produced material showing that the proposal had ultimately been forwarded to the UPSC and accepted by it on 2 July 2026

This subsequent action substantially addressed the operative direction, but the Tribunal did not treat it as conclusively terminating the compliance proceedings because the remaining formalities and the precise present status of implementation had not been fully verified

Since the responsible offices were occupied by current incumbents different from those named in the proceedings, the Tribunal considered their impleadment necessary for obtaining authoritative status reports and ensuring complete compliance

It accepted that substantial steps had been taken, including forwarding of the proposal and its acceptance by the UPSC, but directed the applicant to implead the current incumbents of the Director General, DGHS, and Secretary, UPSC, within one week

The newly impleaded respondents were directed to file status/compliance reports before the next hearing.

The personal appearance of Respondent No. 2 was dispensed with, MA No. 3924/2026 was disposed of, and the contempt petition was listed for further compliance on 12 October 2026