Mere direction to 'consider' a case does not mandate a specific outcome or grant of relief.

The petitioner, initially appointed as a contract employee in 1997, sought regularization of his services.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed his application on 24.12.2019, directing the respondents to "consider" his case for regularization.

On 03.05.2024, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, declining to interfere but directing the respondents to "consider" the case for regularization "if he is otherwise eligible" and "pass appropriate orders".

Subsequently, on 19.03.2025, the respondents issued an order rejecting the claim for regularization while allowing the petitioner to continue on a contract basis until the age of 60 with certain terminal benefits.

The petitioner filed this contempt case alleging willful non-compliance with the High Court's directions.

1. Whether the respondents committed "willful non-compliance" of the High Court's order dated 03.05.2024 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization.

2. Whether the direction to "consider" a case in a specific manner mandates a particular outcome or grants the authority discretionary power.

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 regarding the punishment for contempt.

A direction to "consider" requires an authority to apply its mind to facts and law but does not guarantee a specific result or outcome, as established in A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. vs. V.G. Srinivas Reddy and Ors. (2006).

Canons of legal interpretation defining phrases like "if otherwise eligible," "directed to consider," and "pass appropriate orders" as requirements for evaluation and lawful exercise of discretion rather than a mandatory grant of relief.

The court analyzed the operative part of the preceding Division Bench judgment, focusing on the phrases "if he is otherwise eligible," "directed to consider," and "pass appropriate orders".

The court reasoned that "directed to consider" imposes a duty to fairly assess a matter without guaranteeing a specific outcome, effectively leaving an element of discretion with the authority.

The court noted that unless the High Court records a specific finding of entitlement, a direction to consider only requires the authority to act in accordance with the law.

The court found that the respondents did scrutinize the petitioner's claim and passed a reasoned order on 19.03.2025.

In a contempt jurisdiction, it cannot test the "veracity" or merits of the new order; it can only determine if the direction to "consider" was followed.

The Contempt Case was closed, the respondents were discharged, and the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the legality of the new order through appropriate legal recourse.