Denial of Level-16 appointment was not contempt where the officer lacked one-year residual-service eligibility.

The applicant filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents had not fully complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 8 January 2024, particularly because he had not been granted HAG in Level 16.

The respondents maintained that the order had been complied with and, by an application allowed by the Tribunal, placed additional documents on record.

Those documents stated that, under paragraph 1(ii) of the resolution dated 10 December 2019, an officer required at least one year of residual service on the date a vacancy arose to be eligible for consideration for appointment as Additional Member in Level 16.

The relevant vacancy arose on 1 November 2025; the applicant did not meet that service requirement and was therefore not considered eligible.

Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 8 January 2024, such that the contempt petition should be closed.

Whether the applicant’s non-selection for appointment to the Level-16 post of Additional Member established non-compliance with that order.

The Tribunal relied on its order dated 8 January 2024 in the original application and considered the respondents’ account of paragraph 1(ii) of the resolution dated 10 December 2019, under which eligibility for empanelment and appointment to the post of Additional Member in Level 16 required at least one year of residual service on the date of the vacancy.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent and does not set out a separate test for contempt; it determines whether the original order had been complied with on the record before it.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had granted the applicant the service benefits required by its earlier order.

As to Level 16, it considered the additional documents explaining that the applicant lacked the required one year of residual service when the vacancy arose and was consequently ineligible for consideration under the applicable instructions.

On that basis, the Tribunal was satisfied that its order had been complied with; it did not determine the merits of any independent challenge to the applicant’s non-consideration.

It left the applicant at liberty to pursue any continuing grievance through separate proceedings.