Facts
The applicants, five Staff Car Drivers, filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 1173/2025) seeking the benefit of Vehicle Driver Special Grade Pay (Rs. 4200/-).
Source reference: no citationOn 20.11.2025, the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide the applicants' pending representations via a reasoned and speaking order within one month
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Alleging non-compliance with this direction, the applicants filed the present Contempt Petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents produced a speaking order dated 04/05.05.2026 which rejected the applicants' claim
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by failing to comply with the Tribunal's directions to decide the applicants' representations through a reasoned and speaking order
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Law Applied
The court applied Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to punish for contempt of its orders
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The court also relied on Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines and Directorate letters dated 24.06.2016 and 30.06.2016, which stipulate that financial upgradation or promotion for Staff Car Drivers is contingent upon the availability of posts and prescribed percentages rather than mere length of service
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 4Reasoning
The Tribunal examined whether the respondents' actions met the threshold of compliance for the order dated 20.11.2025.
Source reference: no citationIt noted that the competent authority had issued a detailed speaking order on 04/05.05.2026
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Upon reviewing the contents of said order, the Tribunal found that the respondents had considered the applicants' claims for Special Grade Pay in light of relevant departmental instructions and DoPT guidelines
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4The respondents' order clarified that previous orders granting such grades were withdrawn as they bypassed DPC norms (MoM dated 28.08.2025) and that applicants had already received MACP benefits where promotional posts were unavailable
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4-5The Tribunal reasoned that since the direction was only to "decide the representation," the issuance of a reasoned order—regardless of whether the outcome was in favor of the applicants—constituted substantial compliance
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Holding
The Tribunal held that the directions issued in O.A. No. 1173/2025 had been duly complied with by the respondents.
Consequently, the Contempt Petition was consigned to record and the notices issued to the contemnors were discharged
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6The Tribunal granted the applicants liberty to challenge the legality of the new speaking order dated 04/05.05.2026 before the appropriate forum if they remained aggrieved
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6Original Court PDF
Awadh kishor Yadav and othersvsINFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in