Postal Retirees Get Rs 5,400 Grade Pay As CAT Closes Contempt Case, Leaves Increment Dispute For Fresh OA

In the underlying OA, the applicants sought Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after completing four years in Grade Pay of ₹4,800, relying on M. Subramaniam and related Tribunal decisions.

On 6 March 2024, the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide their cases in light of specified Tribunal orders within three months.

The respondents initially rejected the claims by an order dated 9 September 2024. In an interim order dated 28 November 2024, the Tribunal found that decision inconsistent with its earlier directions and required reconsideration.

The respondents subsequently issued revised Pension Payment Orders granting Grade Pay of ₹5,400. The applicants nevertheless alleged incomplete compliance because the respondents had not allowed an increment when fixing pay in Pay Level 9.

1. Whether the respondents’ revised orders granting Grade Pay of ₹5,400 amounted to compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 6 March 2024

2. Whether the failure to grant an increment in pay fixation constituted wilful disobedience of that order, warranting contempt proceedings

Contempt requires proof that disobedience was wilful—knowing, intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate, with knowledge of its consequences. Casual, accidental, bona fide, unintentional, involuntary or negligent conduct, or genuine inability, does not suffice; where two interpretations are possible and the conduct is not contumacious, contempt is not maintainable. The Tribunal applied these principles from Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Ors. v. P. Ravi Kumar & Ors., 2024 INSC 957.

The scope of compliance was also determined by the operative direction in the underlying OA, which required the respondents to consider the applicants’ cases in light of specified decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the underlying OA sought Grade Pay of ₹5,400 and did not specifically seek, or adjudicate, an increment in pay fixation.

The respondents had ultimately granted the claimed Grade Pay through revised PPOs. Because the increment issue fell outside the relief specifically sought and the direction made in the OA, its omission did not establish wilful disobedience of that order. The Tribunal therefore found no basis to continue the contempt proceedings.

It closed the contempt petition and discharged the notices to the proposed contemnors. It granted the applicants liberty to pursue a fresh OA if they remained aggrieved by the denial of an increment in pay fixation compared with similarly situated employees.