Substantial compliance in contempt proceedings warrants discharge of notices with liberty to revive for remaining benefits.

The applicants filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging non-compliance with orders passed in OA No. 900/1999 regarding the release of retiral benefits and arrears to 121 employees.

During the proceedings, the respondents filed an affidavit detailing the status of the payments: 96 individuals had already received benefits, five payments were released on 03.02.2026, and six beneficiaries were still in service.

Challenges remained regarding three individuals whose records were unavailable, and others who were deemed ineligible for arrears.

The matter came before the Tribunal to determine if the substantial compliance reported warranted the closure of contempt proceedings.

1. Whether the respondents have sufficiently complied with the directions in OA No. 900/1999 to warrant the discharge of contempt notices.

2. Whether the remaining eligible individuals among the 121 beneficiaries are being processed for payment in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal applied the principles of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which empowers the court to punish for willful disobedience of its orders, but also allows for the discharge of notices upon showing substantial compliance or a bona fide effort to implement directions.

The court also relied on the administrative law principle of "expeditious settlement of retiral benefits," ensuring that state authorities process admissible dues according to established service records and eligibility criteria.

The Tribunal analyzed the respondents' progress in implementing the original order. It noted that the vast majority (96 out of 121) had received their dues, and the respondents had actively examined each case individually to determine specific eligibility for arrears.

The Bench observed that the respondents had provided a detailed affidavit explaining the delays, including missing records for three individuals and the ongoing service status of six others.

The court reasoned that since the respondents had implemented the order for the bulk of the applicants and had a mechanism in place to process the remaining valid claims, there was no evidence of "willful disobedience".

The Tribunal determined that the administrative steps taken, as detailed in the affidavit, demonstrated sufficient compliance to close the contempt proceedings while still protecting the applicants' rights through a liberty clause.

The Contempt Petition was closed, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged; the court directed the respondents to expeditiously consider and release benefits to any remaining eligible individuals in accordance with the law.

Liberty was granted to the applicants to approach the Court again if the respondents failed to release benefits once all requisite formalities were completed.

No order as to costs was made.