Undertaking to issue individual reasoned orders satisfies compliance in contempt proceedings regarding promotional benefits.

The petitioners, comprising various Scientists and the All India NIC S&T Officers Association, filed Contempt Petitions (CPs) alleging non-compliance with previous orders passed by the Tribunal in several Original Applications (OAs).

In those OAs, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations regarding service benefits (in-situ promotions), keeping in view the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Vinay Kumar.

The respondents claimed to have examined individual cases and granted entitled benefits, which the petitioners disputed.

Detailed affidavits regarding specific employees were filed by the respondents on 13.10.2025 following Tribunal directions.

1. Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s directions to extend benefits of the Vinay Kumar judgment to similarly situated employees.

2. Whether the respondents are required to pass and communicate individual speaking orders to each applicant/member of the association to enable further legal recourse.

Legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Vinay Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 6359/2016, which governs the criteria for extending specific service benefits to similarly situated Scientists and S&T officers.

The principle of "reasoned and speaking orders" as a prerequisite for administrative transparency and to provide a basis for judicial review if a claimant remains aggrieved.

The Tribunal scrutinized the implementation details provided by the respondents, specifically examining the promotion dates and residency periods of five sample employees.

In the case of Sh. Prashant Kumar Mittal, the Tribunal noted that his promotion to Scientist ‘F’ was antedated to 01.07.2010 rather than 01.01.2010 because he only completed the prescribed five-year residency period by the later date.

Based on this examination, the Tribunal found no prima facie evidence of "willful disobedience".

The Tribunal observed that while some collective benefits were granted, the respondents had not yet issued individual orders to every petitioner or association member; to resolve this, the Tribunal recorded an undertaking from the respondents' counsel to pass and supply separate, reasoned orders to every concerned employee.

The Contempt Petitions were closed subject to the undertaking that the respondents shall pass separate, reasoned orders for each applicant/member of the association and supply copies to the concerned employees within eight weeks.

The petitioners were granted liberty to file fresh Original Applications if they remain aggrieved by the contents of those individual orders.