Specific directions for individual job postings cannot be issued within the scope of contempt proceedings.

The petitioner, a 37-year-old Group-C railway employee, filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging "wilful and intentional disobedience" of the Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2024

In the original order, the Tribunal quashed an earlier rejection and directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s request for a change of category in a "positive and sympathetic manner"

The petitioner was originally a Constable in the RPF but was medically de-categorized and offered the post of Commercial Clerk in 2018 with pay protection

Since then, he earned two promotions, reaching the post of Booking Supervisor in Grade Pay (GP) Rs. 4,200/-

The petitioner sought a transfer to a "Clerk" post in another section

The respondent submitted compliance affidavits stating the petitioner was medically re-examined and found fit in category C-1 with a hearing aid, and his current posting in the legal cell of the Commercial Branch is suitable as it involves no public dealing

1. Whether the respondent committed willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s direction to reconsider the petitioner’s request for a category change

2. Whether the Tribunal can issue directions to post an individual to a specific post or section within the scope of contempt proceedings

The court applied the principles of contempt jurisdiction, focusing on whether there was "wilful and intentional disobedience" of a judicial order

The court followed the established legal principle that the scope of contempt proceedings is restricted to the implementation of the specific directions passed in the judgment and does not permit the Tribunal to issue fresh administrative directions regarding specific postings or service conditions

The Tribunal analyzed the respondent's actions following the original order and found that the "reconsideration" directed had indeed taken place.

The respondent conducted a fresh medical examination which declared the petitioner fit for Category C-1 with a hearing aid

The Tribunal noted that the petitioner’s request for a Clerk post was technically a request for a lower-grade post than his current position as Booking Supervisor (GP 4,200/-)

It was further observed that the petitioner’s current role in the legal cell appropriately accommodated his medical condition by avoiding "intensive public interaction"

The Tribunal determined that the respondent’s refusal to move the petitioner to a different section did not constitute contempt, especially as the petitioner requested a specific legal guarantee that he stay in his current post until retirement, which the Tribunal interpreted as evidence of his satisfaction with the current assignment

The Tribunal ruled that it lacks the authority to direct the posting of an individual to a particular post within contempt proceedings

The CP was closed, the notice against the respondent was discharged, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of