Facts
The petitioners sought the implementation of the Tribunal’s order dated 13.10.2023, which directed the Railway Board to allow the petitioners to opt for their parent cadre (Northern Railway) and granted them proforma promotions w.e.f. 01.11.2003 with all consequential benefits and 6% simple interest per annum
Source reference: p. 2Following a modification application (MA No. 3912/2023) necessitated by the retirement of two petitioners and the death of the third, the Tribunal modified the order on 15.01.2024 to grant these benefits notionally
Source reference: p. 2The respondents challenged the order via a Writ Petition in the High Court, which is currently pending
Source reference: p. 3In a compliance affidavit dated 26.11.2025, the respondents claimed that settlement dues had been paid and the order was fully complied with
Source reference: p. 3The petitioners, however, argued that while principal payments were received, the 6% simple interest mandated by the Tribunal remained unpaid
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the respondents have achieved full compliance with the Tribunal’s directions, specifically regarding the payment of 6% simple interest on arrears
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the personal appearance of the competent authority is warranted due to the alleged non-compliance with the interest component of the order
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
The court applied the principles of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding the willful disobedience of judicial mandates.
Source reference: p. 2, 3It emphasized that "consequential benefits" and specific directions for "simple interest" must be satisfied to constitute full compliance
Source reference: p. 2, 3The court further relied on procedural law governing the filing of a "better compliance affidavit" when a respondent's claim of fulfillment is contested by the petitioner based on specific omitted reliefs
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Tribunal scrutinized the rival submissions and the modification order dated 15.01.2024, noting that the direction for 6% simple interest remained an integral part of the final order
Source reference: p. 3The court observed that while the respondents demonstrated the payment of settlement dues through letters dated 17.07.2025, 18.07.2025, and 12.08.2025, they failed to provide evidence of the interest payment
Source reference: p. 3The Tribunal reasoned that partial payment of dues does not equate to full compliance when a specific interest rate is ordered.
Source reference: p. 3Therefore, the respondents were found to be in continuing default of the specific direction regarding the interest component
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The Tribunal held that the respondents had not fully complied with the order as the 6% interest remained unpaid
It directed the respondents to comply with the interest direction and file a "better compliance affidavit"
Source reference: p. 3The court ordered that if the direction is not satisfied by the next hearing on 07.05.2026, the competent authority among the respondents must appear in person or via video conferencing to explain the non-compliance
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
D K PATHAKvsSATISH KUMAR, CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in