Shri.S.S.Senthil And ORS v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/44/2025 Shri S.S.Senthil and others Vs.

The Union of India and others Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioners Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents October 29, 2025 [SR] Item No.4 By this application, the petitioners have challenged a decision of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, Circuit Bench at Port Blair dated July 29, 2025. The learned Tribunal disposed of the contempt application which was remanded by a Division Bench, inter alia, holding that there was a substantial compliance of the order passed in OA/351/1181/2023.

Mr.

Arul Prasanth, learned advocate for petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal had come to a finding that one T.Leena and the petitioners were similarly situated and the petitioners were entitled to get the same benefit which was extended to T.Leena, if otherwise found fit.

In terms of the earlier order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as High Court, respondents/alleged contemnors before learned

Tribunal were directed to take appropriate steps to confirm the petitioners' service from the date they were entitled to in terms of their appointment letter and grant consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. According to Mr. Prasanth, T. Leena had been granted all consequential benefits, which were denied to the petitioners by the respondents. The petitioner filed contempt application. The contempt application was dismissed, holding substantial compliance. The order was challenged before the Court by filing WP.CT/9/2025. Mr. Prasanth relies on a decision of the Coordinate Bench. The Bench recorded that the learned Tribunal ought to have come to a finding that its order had been complied in full, especially with regard to the GPF and pensionary component of the petitioners.

We find that, upon compliance of the order of the Division Bench, another order was passed by the learned Tribunal. The said order does not deal with the aspects pointed out by the Division Bench, as to whether GPF, pensionary and other consequential benefits should have been granted or not.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate for the respondents submits that, the case of the petitioners were restricted to those benefits which was given to T.Leena.

Accordingly, the Original Application was disposed of directing the respondents to treat the petitioners at par with T.Leena and grant all benefits to them, as was granted to T.Leena. Same treatment was extended to the petitioner. No other benefit was permissible in law. The respondents passed a reasoned order and allowed confirmation, ACP, MACP to the petitioners, at par with T. Leena.

The respondents specifically submit that petitioners are not entitled to any other benefits other than which were granted to T.Leena.

Upon perusal of the reasoned order, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that there was substantial compliance with the order. The High Court, at this stage, should not sit in appeal over an order of contempt. Contempt proceedings are restricted to the court and the contemnors.

Heard the parties.

We appreciate the submissions of Mr. Rakesh Kumar. However, Mr. Prasanth has produced a Division Bench order wherein a specific direction was given to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the contempt application. The Division Bench noted that the order passed in the contempt application should have recorded whether there was full compliance of the order of the

Tribunal specially with regard to the claim for GPF, pensionary and other consequential benefits. The matter was remanded.

The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the contempt application without granting unnecessary adjournments. An affidavit was directed to be filed by the alleged contemnors showing complete compliance of directions as mentioned in paragraph 5.3 of the order of the Tribunal dated August 08, 2024.

We find that pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench, an order was passed by the Tribunal on July 29, 2025. The said order is silent on the GPF, pensionary and other consequential benefits which the petitioners claims. Although, the Division Bench did not allow the claim for GPF and pension, but the Division Bench had directed the Tribunal to deal with such aspects while disposing of the contempt application afresh. The order is silent. Relevant portion of the order is quoted below:- "Today, learned counsel for the contemnors places one Order No. 178 dated 10.02.2025 issued by the Assistant Director (Admin) from the Office of Directorate of RD, PRIs & Urban Local Bodies whereby in compliance of the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in OA.

351/1181/2023 applicant along with others has been confirmed in the present grade pay with effect from 29.07.2004.

He also places another order No, 255 dated 26.02.2025 issued by the same authority vide which the applicant along with others has been

granted first financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/ with effect from 29.07.2012 and 2nd financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- with effect from 29.07.2022.

In víew of above, learned counsel for the contemnors submits that they have substantially complied with the order of this Tribunal. Therefore, the C.P. may be dropped. Learned counsel for the petitioner also accepted the said submission."

Under such circumstances, we are of the view that justice demands that the matter be remanded once again for a complete decision on the contempt application upon hearing all the parties in order to assess whether paragraph 5.3 of the direction of the learned Tribunal in its order dated August 08, passed in OA/351/1181/2023 had been complied with or not. The Tribunal is best judge to decide issue, independently, upon interpreting the purport of the decision and directions passed in the OA.

Mr.Rakesh Kumar submits that whatever was granted to T. Leena was allowed. However, in view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we deem it proper to remand the matter for a decision by the Tribunal on the basis of the order of the Division Bench passed in WP.CT/9/2025 on March 19, 2025.

In paragraph 2.4 of the order passed in the O.A, the learned Tribunal had framed the issues and accordingly

the decision was passed in paragraph 5.3. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below.

"2.4 As per the applicants herein, since all of them were initially appointed in 2002 and without any disciplinary or criminal proceedings pending against them, they were not granted confirmation for which neither they are getting any promotion nor any financial upgradation therefore, Learned Counsel for the applicants strenuously prays for extension of benefit granted to T. Leena within a stipulated period of time.

5.3 In view of the above, as the applicants herein and T. Leena are similarly situated, the applicants are entitled to get the same benefit, if otherwise found fit, in terms of the earlier order passed by this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court, therefore, respondents are directed to take appropriate steps to confirm the applicants' service from the date they would be entitled to in terms of their appointment letter and grant consequential benefits, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

We are not in a position to decide the factual aspects at this stage. We are not equipped to interpret the order of the Tribunal and whether the directions had been complied with. We do not wish to do so. We are of the view that the earlier order of the Division Bench should be complied with by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal finds that the case of the petitioners in the Original Application had been taken into consideration as per the direction of the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall say so. The order which has been passed and is impugned, is very cryptic. The stand of the contemnors as to why GPF and other pensionary

benefits were not allowed to the petitioners, is not reflected in the order of the Tribunal.

The impugned order is accordingly set aside.

The learned Tribunal is directed to dispose of the issue in a detailed manner, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

( Shampa Sarkar, J. ) ( Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. )