Facts
Six retired postal employees (petitioners) filed a Contempt Petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions regarding the revision of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) dates and subsequent arrears
Source reference: p. 1-2Earlier, on 13.02.2026, the respondents filed a compliance affidavit stating they had paid arrears but withheld 15% of the total amount pending verification by the Accounts Authorities
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6In the case of Petitioner No. 2, Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain (deceased), payments were pending claim submission by legal heirs
Source reference: p. 3On 08.04.2026, the Tribunal noted that the withheld 15% remained unpaid and granted a final opportunity for compliance
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the respondents willfully disobeyed the Tribunal's directions by withholding 15% of the arrears and failing to release dues to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner
Source reference: p. 3, para. 1-22. Whether the subsequent actions taken by the respondents constitute "full compliance" warranting the discharge of contempt notices
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3Law Applied
The court applied the principles governing Contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically focusing on whether there was "substantial compliance" with judicial orders.
Source reference: no citationThe court relied on the administrative procedure for MACP revision and pensionary benefits, including the requirement of verification by the General Manager (Finance) and Postal Accounts departments
Source reference: p. 3, para 6It followed the principle that once the core grievance (payment of arrears) is redressed and the judicial direction is implemented in letter and spirit, the contempt proceedings may be closed
Source reference: p. 4-5Reasoning
The court evaluated the respondents' fresh compliance affidavit filed on 12.05.2026. The respondents demonstrated that the previously withheld 15% of arrears, which was pending verification by the concerned Accounts Authorities, had now been fully released to all six petitioners
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Specifically, the court noted that the respondents provided proof of payment for all individuals, ranging from approximately ₹41,377 to ₹1,15,514
Source reference: p. 4Regarding the deceased Petitioner No. 2, the court observed that the benefits were successfully released to his legal heir, Mrs. Chhavi Jain, via payment on 28.04.2026
Source reference: p. 4By presenting specific payment figures and Annexure CPR/1 (payment proofs), the respondents neutralized the claim of "willful disobedience"
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Tribunal held that the directions had been fully complied with by the respondents
The Contempt Petition (C.P. No. 663/2025) was closed and the notices issued to the contemnors were discharged. However, the court granted the petitioners liberty to seek further legal recourse if any lingering grievances remained regarding the calculations or implementation
Source reference: p. 5, para. 3Original Court PDF
Naresh KumarvsMS VANDITA KAUL & ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in