Substantial compliance with directions for notional increment and arrears negates willful disobedience in contempt proceedings.

The applicant filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 28.02.2024.

The original order directed the respondents to grant one notional increment to the applicant, issue revised Pension Payment Orders (PPOs), and pay arrears for three years preceding the filing of the O.A. at 6% simple interest per annum.

Between January and December 2025, the respondents filed three compliance affidavits stating that revised PPOs had been issued and arrears paid.

The applicant filed an objection on 26.05.2025, asserting that the 6% interest had not yet been disbursed.

The respondents contended that the interest payment process was initiated through communications with Pension Disbursing Banks (CPPC) and would be finalized upon receipt of bank details.

1. Whether the respondents’ actions constitute "willful or deliberate disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, given the substantial compliance with the directions regarding notional increments and revised PPOs.

2. Whether the directions for arrears and interest must be harmonized with the subsequent legal clarifications issued by the Supreme Court.

The court primarily applied the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which requires proof of "willful or deliberate disobedience" to sustain a contempt proceeding.

Union of India & Ors. v. M. Siddaraj [M.A. Diary No. 2400/2024 in SLP (C) No. 4722/2021], which clarified that the benefit of notional increments for those retiring on 30th June/31st December shall be extended prospectively from 01.05.2023 for third parties, and arrears for litigants shall be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents demonstrated substantial compliance by granting the notional increment and issuing revised PPOs.

Regarding the delay in interest payment, the Tribunal noted the respondents' administrative efforts to coordinate with banks for interest calculation.

The court analyzed the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in M. Siddaraj, which modified the entitlement landscape for notional increments by setting a prospective cutoff for certain benefits and confirming the three-year limitation on arrears.

Consequently, the Tribunal reasoned that since the core directions were implemented and the remaining monetary aspects were subject to administrative processing and subsequent judicial clarifications, there was no evidence of a contumacious intent to defy the court's authority.

The Contempt Petition was consigned to record, and the notices issued to the respondents were discharged.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider any representation filed by the applicant regarding the computation of consequential arrears in light of the revised pay within a reasonable timeframe.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly.