Full compliance through recalculation and payment of outstanding interest warrants closure of contempt proceedings.

The applicant filed a contempt petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 9 November 2023 in O.A. No. 425/2019.

That order directed the respondents to pay the applicant pension and other retiral benefits, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date the amounts became due until actual payment, within three months of receipt of the certified copy.

The respondents initially filed a compliance affidavit stating that the pensionary benefits had been processed and disbursed.

The applicant objected that the interest had not been correctly calculated.

Subsequently, the respondents filed a further compliance affidavit stating that interest had been recalculated separately on pension, DCRG and leave encashment, and that the remaining amounts had been released through Cheque No. 308890 dated 9 July 2026.

The revised calculations showed balance payments of Rs. 7,38,491 towards pension interest, Rs. 51,791 towards DCRG interest and Rs. 1,03,581 towards leave-encashment interest.

The respondents also placed the calculation sheets and proof of release on record.

Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 9 November 2023 regarding payment of pensionary and other retiral benefits with interest at 6% per annum.

Whether the respondents’ revised calculation and subsequent release of the balance interest amount sufficiently remedied the applicant’s objection regarding incorrect interest calculation.

Whether any further proceedings or directions were warranted in the contempt petition.

The Tribunal applied Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Tribunal possesses contempt jurisdiction in relation to non-compliance with its orders.

The governing rule was the specific direction contained in the Tribunal’s order dated 9 November 2023 requiring payment of pension and retiral benefits with interest at 6% per annum from the date on which the amounts became due until actual payment.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that contempt proceedings concern compliance with the court’s order and constitute a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor; accordingly, the matter could be considered despite the applicant’s counsel being absent.

Once the respondents demonstrated recalculation in accordance with the original direction and payment of the balance amount found due, no further contempt relief was warranted.

Although the applicant initially challenged the computation of interest, the respondents reconsidered the calculations and separately calculated interest on pension, DCRG and leave encashment, while adjusting amounts already paid.

The revised figures, supporting calculation sheets and documentary proof of release demonstrated that the respondents had addressed the applicant’s objection and paid the balance interest allegedly due under the original order.

On the material before it, the Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the substantive direction to pay the retiral benefits together with interest and that nothing further remained payable in relation to the order dated 9 November 2023.

Consequently, continuation of the contempt proceedings was unnecessary.

The Contempt Petition was accordingly consigned to record, the notices issued to the respondents were discharged, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.