Substantial compliance with tribunal directions warrants dropping contempt proceedings in full satisfaction.

The petitioners, employees of Banaras Locomotive Works, instituted contempt proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 15 January 2025 in O.A. No. 611 of 2023.

In that order, the Tribunal had set aside recovery orders concerning incentive-bonus overpayments, directed that no recovery be made from the petitioners, and ordered refund of amounts already recovered within three months of receipt of the certified copy, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply.

During the contempt proceedings, counsel for both sides jointly submitted that the order had been complied with and requested that the contempt petition be dropped.

The Tribunal considered the respondents’ compliance affidavit and assessed whether the directions had been substantially complied with.

1. Whether the respondents had substantially complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 15 January 2025 concerning cessation of recovery and refund of recovered amounts

2. Whether any further contempt proceedings were warranted after considering the compliance affidavit and the parties’ joint submission

The contempt petition was filed under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which confers contempt jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal for wilful disobedience of its orders.

The underlying order applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), (2015) 4 SCC 334, under which recovery of mistaken overpayments is generally impermissible in specified situations, including recovery from Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees, where the recovery would be inequitable, harsh, arbitrary, or disproportionately prejudicial to the employee.

The operative directions required the respondents to refrain from recovery and refund amounts already recovered within three months, subject to 6% annual interest in case of default.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had filed a compliance affidavit and that counsel for both parties accepted that the order dated 15 January 2025 had been complied with.

On examining the material placed before it, the Tribunal concluded that substantial compliance had been achieved with respect to the directions issued in the original application.

Since the purpose of the contempt proceedings—securing compliance with the Tribunal’s order—had been fulfilled, no further proceedings were considered necessary.

The Tribunal therefore treated the matter as having been satisfied rather than proceeding to determine or punish any continuing contempt.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 262 of 2025 was accordingly dropped in full satisfaction; the notices issued to the opposite parties were discharged.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.