Kerala High Court
Vice Admiral V. Sameer Saxena vs N.V Krishnan on 24 February, 2026
OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:17069
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 IN OA NO.668 OF 2016 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2026 IN CP NO.19 OF 2023 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/S:
VICE ADMIRAL V. SAMEER SAXENA, AGED 58 YEARS
SON OF MML SAXENA, AVSM, NM, THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF,
SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, NAVAL BASE, COCHIN, PIN - 682004
BY ADV SAJITH KUMAR V., SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
RESPONDENT/S:
N.V KRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O S VENKITAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR TRANSLATION OFFICER, INDIAN NAVAL SHIP
VENDURUTHY, KOCHI - 682004 RESIDING AT 'HARIKRIPA', KALLARA ROAD, EROOR,
TRIPUNITHARA, PIN - 682306
SRI SHAFIK M A
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:17069
JUDGMENT
"C.R."
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in C.P. No. 19/2023 in O.A. No. 180/00668/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the personal appearance of the petitioner was exempted for the time being, with a clarification that if the order is not implemented before the next posting date, the exemption from personal appearance shall stand revoked.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Original Petition are that the respondent herein filed the Original Application seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records relating to Annexures A1 to A13, and to declare that the applicants are entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Scale with effect from 01.01.2006 as per A2 and A3 OM;
(ii) To direct the respondents to immediately refix the pay of the applicants with effect from 01.01.2006 in the scale of pay of Rs.9300 -
OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 3 2026:KER:17069 34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600 and to refix the pay, ACP benefits and all other consequential refixations and to draw arrears with 18% penal interest;
(iii) To direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits of fixation of pay and arrears on such re-fixation of pay with 18% penal interest;
(iv) To issue such other appropriate orders or directions this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case; and
(v) To grant the costs of this Original Application"
3. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application vide order dated 10.01.2022, and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
"10. In view of the law laid down by the Tribunal in OAs Nos. 656 of 2012 and 953 of 2012 and the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Union of India & 2 Ors. v. T.M. Thomas in OP (CAT) No. 142 of 2014, we hold that applicants in this OA are also entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and they are also entitled to get their pay re-fixed COURT OF w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in the new scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with all financial upgradations as per law. We also direct the respondents to complete the above exercise within a period of 3 months.
11. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No order as to costs."
OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:17069
4. The petitioner filed Ext. P7 compliance report, which would reveal that the respondent was granted the first Assured Career Progression (ACP) with effect from 17.01.2006 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-, and the second MACP with effect from 17.01.2014 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the relevant provision leading to the fixation of pay on the first ACP was also extracted.
4.1 Since the respondent objected to the grant of ACP in the same Grade Pay, a more beneficial fixation was carried out, and an additional affidavit (Ext. P9) was filed. As per the revised proposal, the respondent was granted the first MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- with effect from 01.09.2008 and the second MACP with effect from 17.01.2014 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-.
4.2 In view of the merger of the scales of Junior Translator and Senior Translator in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-, and the introduction of MACP with effect from 01.09.2008, the respondent was granted the OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:17069 benefit that was legally permissible.
5. The respondent filed Contempt Petition, C.P. No. 19/2023, alleging incomplete compliance with the directions issued in the Original Application. The petitioner filed a status report and compliance statement extending all the admissible benefits. The respondent was also permitted to file an affidavit, wherein he sought to enlarge the scope of the order by claiming ACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- with effect from 01.01.2006, contending that his seniors had been granted ACP in the said Grade Pay.
5.1 The petitioner herein, in reply to the affidavit dated 10.02.2025, filed a statement, inter alia, stating that the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 24.09.2024 in C.P. No. 19/2023, had directed the petitioner to implement the order in accordance with Annexures A4 and A9 read with the Full Bench decision in Annexure A8. Accordingly, the respondent, who was working as Junior Hindi Translator, was granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- (Level-7 of the VII CPC) with effect from OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:17069 01.01.2006; the first MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- (Level-8 of the VII CPC); the second MACP on completion of 20 years in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- (Level-9 of the VII CPC); and the third MACP on completion of 30 years of service in Level-10 of the VII CPC Pay Matrix, as eligible.
5.2 The MACP granted to the respondent is more beneficial, as the ACP in the same Grade Pay was ignored in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of India.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner has already complied with the order in full. However, the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 07.07.2025, passed the following order:
"In view of the law laid down by the Tribunal in OAs Nos. 656 of 2012 and 953 of 2012 and the order of the Hon'ble High Court in Union of India & 2 Ors. v. T.M Thomas in OP (CAT) No. 142 of 2014, we hold that applicants in this O.A are also entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- w.e.f 1.1.2006 and they are also entitled to get their pay re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in the new scale of Rs. 9,300 - 34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with all financial upgradations as per law. We also direct the respondents to OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 7 2026:KER:17069 complete the above exercise within a period of 3 months"
In the compliance report at para 6, the respondents have stated that they have granted grade pay of Rs.4,600/- to the applicants with effect from 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits. However, the applicants are demanding the upgradation of grade pay of Senior Translators (ADOL) also only for claiming undue of enhanced financial upgradation. With the aid of Annexure A-8 and Annexure A-9, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that all similarly situated persons were granted grade pay accordingly. There was merger of posts of Junior Translators and Senior Translators (ADOL). 1st financial benefit was given at the grade pay of Rs.5,400/- with effect from 01.01.2006 in PB-3 and 2nd financial benefit on completion of further 10 years of service at the grade pay of Rs.6,600/-.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPC. we feel that the order has not been implemented accordingly. Implement the order and report compliance within 2 months, failing which, competent authority among the respondents will be directed to appear in person.
Post on 10.09 2015, It is made clear that no further adjournment will be granted on any grounds."
6.1 From the above order, it is evident that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passed in O.A. No. 668/2016 had not been OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 8 2026:KER:17069 implemented, and therefore granted two months' time for compliance, failing which the competent authority among the respondents would be directed to appear in person.
7. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal passed another order dated 10.09.2025, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"This Tribunal, by order dated 07.07.2025, had found that in spite of several opportunities granted and repeated directions issued to the respondents to implement the order, the order was not complied with. After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides, by order dated 07.07.2025, the respondents were directed to implement the order and to report compliance, failing which the competent authority among the respondents will be directed to appear in person. It was made clear that no further adjournments will be granted.
When the matter was taken up today, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an MA has been filed by the respondents, which was brought up as benchmark, wherein the respondents in the OA has referred to few other orders of Tribunals contending that the order of this Tribunal as confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in OP(CAT) was not in accordance with the law.
Such a contention is not available to the petitioner when the order is sought to be implemented and the CP is in an advanced stage. The order OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 9 2026:KER:17069 sought to be implemented is of the year 2016 and the CP was filed in 2023. Even now, the order has not been implemented. Accordingly, we are inclined to direct the personal appearance of Respondent No.1 accordingly. 28.10.2025 at 10:30 on a.m. Ordered accordingly. List on 28.10.2025."
In the above order, the first respondent in the contempt petition was directed to remain personally present on 28.10.2025 at 10:30 a.m.
8. Both the orders dated 07.07.2025 and 10.09.2025 passed in the contempt petition were the subject matter of challenge in O.P. (CAT) No. 136/2025. The said Original Petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable at the instance of the Original Petitioner therein, as he had no locus standi to challenge the orders of the Tribunal.
9. Thereafter, on 04.02.2026, in the contempt petition, the learned Tribunal passed a detailed order holding that the order in the Original Application had not been implemented and that further proceedings were liable to be initiated. The learned Tribunal issued Rule 8 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 notice OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 10 2026:KER:17069 to the petitioner herein with a clear direction that, if the order was not implemented before the next posting date, the exemption from personal appearance might be revoked, and posted the matter for further hearing on 02.03.2026.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present Original Petition is filed.
10. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioner contended that the directions in the Original Application have been fully complied with and that the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- has been extended to the respondent with effect from 01.01.2006 (being the Grade Pay applicable to Senior Translator). The respondent's pay was also refixed with effect from 01.01.2006 in the scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-, along with all financial upgradations as admissible in law.
10.1 It was further submitted that, in the light of the affidavit dated 10.02.2025 [Ext. P12] filed by the respondent herein, the learned Tribunal enlarged the scope of the directions contained in the original OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 11 2026:KER:17069 order, wherein the respondent sought ACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- with effect from 01.01.2006, relying on Ext. P9 and contending that his seniors had been granted ACP in the said Grade Pay. On that basis, he claimed that the same benefit ought to be extended to him.
10.2 The learned Senior Panel Counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, travelled beyond the four corners of the order alleged to have been violated and entered into questions that had neither been dealt with nor decided in the Original Application. The learned Tribunal could not have issued supplemental directions in the contempt proceedings. This aspect is evident from the pleadings and prayer clauses in the Original Application, wherein the respondent had not even pleaded for the grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- with effect from 01.01.2006, nor had he claimed parity with similarly situated persons.
10.3 If the said additional direction is excluded, the direction contained in the order in O.A. No. 668/2016 stands fully complied with. OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 12 2026:KER:17069 Furthermore, the learned Senior Panel Counsel contended that the learned Tribunal, by exceeding its jurisdiction, issued notice under Rule 8 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, granting time till the next date of hearing to implement the order, failing which the petitioner would be required to appear before the learned Tribunal in person.
11. The learned Counsel strenuously contended that, in view of the compliance with the aforementioned order, no contempt would lie. It was submitted that a Contempt Petition can only proceed when contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner is established. To support this contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on paragraph 11 of the judgment in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Gaguly1, wherein it was stated as follows:
"The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. Since the respect and authority commanded 1 (2002) KHC 1269 OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 13 2026:KER:17069 by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the juidiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of courts is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious."
11.1 The learned Counsel also relied on the decision reported in Lt. Col. Aphraim A.A(Rtd.) v. Rajiv Ranjan2, wherein it was stated as follows:
"Court while exercising the contempt jurisdiction can only adjudicate in respect of the disobedience alleged and Court cannot travel beyond the 2 (2024) KHC OnLine 1260 OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 14 2026:KER:17069 four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order, violation of which is alleged and that no order or direction supplemental to what has already been expressed could be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt of law."
In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and consequently the Contempt Petition closed.
12. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, notwithstanding the petitioner having filed around seven compliance reports, the order has not been fully implemented. The learned Tribunal, while disposing of the Original Application, had specifically directed the grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006, along with refixation of pay in the scale of Rs. 9,300- 34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- and all financial upgradations as per law. The grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- with effect from 01.01.2006 is clearly encompassed within "all financial upgradations as per law." In these circumstances, the Original Petition calls for no interference and is liable OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 15 2026:KER:17069 to be dismissed with heavy costs.
13. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
14. On perusal of the operative portion of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, reproduced hereinabove, it is seen that the respondent has been granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006, along with pay refixation from 01.01.2006 in the new scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-, as reflected in the compliance report. Further, the respondent was entitled to receive the first MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/-, the second MACP on completion of 20 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/-, and the third MACP on completion of 30 years of service.
14.1 The petitioner has submitted that the respondent, who was a Junior Translator, was granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 01.01.2006. The promotion/financial upgradation under ACP to the pre- revised scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000 was ignored due to the merger of the pre- OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 16 2026:KER:17069 revised scales of Rs. 5,000-8,000, Rs. 5,500-9,000, and Rs. 6,500-10,500, as recommended by the VI CPC. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to the first MACP with effect from 01.09.2008 in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- and the second MACP on completion of 20 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/-.
14.2 This clearly indicates that all consequential benefits have been extended to the respondent, and this aspect has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
15. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal exceeded its contempt jurisdiction in concluding that, according to Annexures A8 and A9, all similarly situated persons were granted the Grade Pay accordingly. There was a merger of the posts of Junior Translators and Senior Translators. The first financial benefit was granted at the Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- with effect from 01.01.2006 in PB-3, and the second financial benefit, on completion of a further ten years of service, at the Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/-, was also granted. Despite this, the Tribunal OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 17 2026:KER:17069 concluded that the order had not been implemented.
15.1 Vide order dated 10.09.2025, the Tribunal directed the personal appearance of the petitioner on 28.10.2025. Such a direction could not have been issued, as the respondent, by filing affidavits, was seeking upgradation of the pay scale of Senior Hindi Translator and ACP in such upgraded pay scale. In fact, the respondent was attempting to obtain reliefs that were not pleaded in the Original Application, including claims regarding a higher pay scale and parity with similarly situated employees.
15.2 Therefore, merely on the basis of the respondent's affidavit, the Tribunal could not have directed implementation of the order, as such a direction was beyond the scope of its contempt jurisdiction. The claims were neither pleaded in the Original Application nor considered by the Tribunal, and they do not find a place in the impugned order. We are satisfied that the order passed in O.A. No. 668/2016 has been fully complied with. It is a fundamental principle of law that Tribunals cannot OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 18 2026:KER:17069 grant relief that goes beyond what was actually asked for in the original pleadings. Relief must be restricted to the "four corners" of the Original Application.
16. In view of the foregoing, the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in C.P. No. 19/2023 in O.A. No. 668/2016 is set aside. Consequently, since we have already held that the order has been fully complied with, C.P. No. 19/2023 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, also stands dismissed. The Rule Nisi issued against the petitioner is hereby discharged. However, the respondent shall be at liberty to ventilate any grievance, if so advised, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE jjj OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 19 2026:KER:17069 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO. F.NO. 70/11/2000 -IC DATED 14.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM F.NO. 1/1/2008_IC DATED 24.11.2008 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM F.NO.1/1/2008-IC DATED 13.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE DEPT OF EXPENDITURE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.9.2011 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO. 107/2011 Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.8.2014 OF THE PRINCIPAL BENCH IN O.A. NO. 124/2013 Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CP(P)/OA 124/2013/1666/US(MP)/D(NII)/ 2014 DATED 6.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CS 2695/43/101/1 DATED 13.01.2015 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2013 OF THE FULL BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO. 656/2012 AND OA 953/2012 Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.4.2015 IN OP CAT NO.
142/2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT Annexure A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.12.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT Annexure A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CE ADMIN MINUTE SHEET NO 267/10/1 DATED 8.7.2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 280/36/1/ DATED 11.4.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.1.2022 THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/668/2016 Annexure P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT Annexure P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF MINUTE SHEET NO. 280/36/1 DATED 10.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE COMMANDER Annexure P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE CE ADMIN SECTION MINUTE SHEET NO. 273/10/1 DATED 14.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS Annexure P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.7.2022 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 20 2026:KER:17069 IN M.A. NO. 180/498/2022 & M.A. NO. 180/499/2022 Annexure P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.3.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT Annexure P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF MINUTE SHEET NO. 280/36/1 DATED 17.4.2023 ISSUED BY THE COMMANDER Annexure CP R1 A TRUE COPY OF NAVAL HEADQUARTERS/ DIRECTORATE OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL SERVICES LETTER CPT(L)/8000/OP(CAT) NO. 123/2023 DATED 12.06.2024 Annexure CP R3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DOPT OM NO.35034/1/97- ESTT(D)(VOL IV) DATED 18.07.2001 Annexure CP R4(a) TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE SLIP DATED 20.09.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO 1 Annexure CP R4(b) TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE SLIP DATED 20.09.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO 2 Annexure CP R4(c) TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE SLIP DATED 20.09.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO 3 Annexure CP R4(d) TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE SLIP DATED 20.09.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO 4 Annexure CP R4(e) TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE SLIP DATED 20.09.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO 5 Annexure CP R4(f) TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE SLIP DATED 20.09.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO 6 Annexure CP R5 TRUE COPY OF NAVAL HEADQUARTERS, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY) LETTER CP(NG)/2853/MACP/HQSNC DATED 22.10.2024 Annexure CP R6 TRUE COPY OF HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI VIDE LETTER CS 2762/33/MACP DTAED 22.10.2024 Annexure CP R7(a) A TRUE COPY JOINT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (NAVY), KOCHI LETTERS PAY/112/CIV/CORRS/VOL-V DATED 05.11.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO. 1 Annexure CP R7(b) A TRUE COPY JOINT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (NAVY), KOCHI LETTERS PAY/112/CIV/CORRS/VOL-V DATED 05.11.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANTS NO. 2,3 & 6 Annexure CP R7(c) A TRUE COPY JOINT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (NAVY), KOCHI LETTERS PAY/112/CIV/CORRS/VOL-V DATED 05.11.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO. 5 Annexure CP R7(d) A TRUE COPY JOINT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (NAVY), KOCHI LETTERS PAY/112/CIV/CORRS/VOL-V DATED 05.11.2024 IN RESPECT OF APPLICANT NO. 4 Annexure CP R8 A TRUE COPY OFFICE OF THE DEFENCE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, JOINT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (NAVY), KOCHI LETTER NO. AAO/K/PAY/103/GEN/OA/668/2016 DATED 28.11.2024 OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 21 2026:KER:17069 Annexure P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ID NO. 261/2024/RLJ/ADV/CHN DATED 24.4.2024 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE Annexure P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT LIST NO. 61/2012 DATED 10.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure MA1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21.06.2012 IN OP CAT NO. 467/2012 Annexure MA2 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT IN OA 656/2012 Annexure MA3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING, KOCHI - 16 OFFICE ORDER NO. 21/2016 DATED 11.04.2016 Annexure MA4 TRUE COPY OF GOVT OF INDIA, OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN LETTER NO. 1/04/99: ADMN:CSEZ/2344 DATED 03.09.2025 ALONG WITH REVISED PAY FIXATION STATEMENT DATED 27.07.2015 IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT IN OA 953/2012 Annexure MA5 TRUE COPY OF DIRECTORATE OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY), NEW DELHI LETTER CP(P)/8416/SR & JRTRAN DATED 28.10.2022 ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSURE Annexure CP - R9 TRUE COPY OF THE INS VENDURUTHY CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT LIST NO. 130/2024 DATED 05.09.2024 Annexure CP - R10 TRUE COPY OF INS VENDURUTHY CIVILIAN ESTABLISHMENT LIST NO.
158/2024 DATED 05.11.2024 Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 IN CP 19/2023 Exhibit P1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2025 IN CP 19/2023 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2026 IN CP 19/2023 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 668/2016 DATED 16.07.2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 IN OA 668/2016 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CP(C)NO.180/00019/2023 IN OA 668/2016 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 25.06.2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT DATED 23.09.2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT PETITION Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT DATED 22.10.2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT PETITION Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT PETITION DATED 05.11.2024 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT OP (CAT) NO. 35 OF 2026 22 2026:KER:17069 DATED 03.12.2024 BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT PETITION Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT PETITION DATED 16/12/2024 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.02.2025 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT PETITION Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20.03.2025 FILED THE RESPONDENTS IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.04.2025 FILED BY THE APPLICANT Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 26.06.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.NO.835 /2025 DATED 08.09.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT PETITION Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2025 IN OP CAT 136 OF 2025 Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025 IN CP 19/2023 OF THE HON'BLE CAT Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 IN CP 19/2023 OF THE HON'BLE CAT Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 02.01.2026 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 75/2026 IN CP 19/2023 IN OA 668/2026