Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vijay Kumar Sharma vs Shri Himanshu Badoni Divisional ... on 11 December, 2025
1
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
ALLAHABAD, this the 11th day of December, 2025
Present:
HON'BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.
HON'BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A.
Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.39 of 2025
IN
Original Application No.330/616 of 2024
1. Vijay Kumar Sharma (Date of Birth 01.07.1960), aged about
64 years, son of Late Chhotey Lal, R/o 145-A Badshahi
Mandi, Allahabad, Prayagraj (U.P.) 211003.
Retired on 30.06.2020 as Loco Pilot (Goods) at Allahabad in
the Mechanical Department, North Central Railway,
Allahabad Division. Ρ.Ρ.Ο. Νο. 20207320200448. (Applicant
No. 1 in OA 330/616)
2. Sangita Srivastava (Date of Birth 03.06.1961), aged about 63
years, wife of of Shri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, R/o 74/71 Tula
Ram bagh, Allahabad, Prayagraj (U.P.)-211006
Retired on 30.06.2021 as Office
Superintendent/Engineering Department in the D.R.M.
Office, North Central Railway, Allahabad Division,
Allahabad. P.P.O. No. 20217320200332. (Applicant No.-2 in
OA 330/616)
3. Urmila Chaurasia (Date of Birth 30.06.1958), aged about 66
years, wife of Shri Raj Kumar Chaurasia, R/o 468
Alakhnanada Colony Rati Dang, Behind MPS School Vashali
Nagar, Ajmer, Rajsthan-305004
Retired on 30.06.2018 as Chief Telephone
Operator/Allahabad in the Signal & Telecom Department,
North Central Railway, Allahabad Division. P.P.O. No.
20187320200777, (Applicant No.-3 in OA 330/616)
4. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava (Date of Birth 01.07.1955) aged
about 69 years, son of Shri Ganga Prasad, resident of 180-
C/3J RajroopPur (SURI MARG), Prayagraj- (U.P.)-211011.
Retired on 30.06.2015 as Senior Section Engineer (TRD) in
Electric-TRD Department of the North Central Railway,
SHAKUNTALA VERMA
2
Allahabad Division, Prayagraj. Ρ.Ρ.Ο. No. 20157320200924.
(Applicant No.-6 in OA 330/616)
............Petitioners.
VERSUS
Shri Himanshu Badoni, Divisional Railway Manager, North
Central Railway, Prayagraj (Allahabad) Division, Prayagraj.
. . . . . . Opposite party.
Advocate for the petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Chandra.
Advocate for the respondents: Mr. S.K. Tiwari.
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial) Mr. Rakesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
2. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 31.05.2024 passed in OA No. 330/616/2024. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under:-
"15. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid certain positions of law, the OA is allowed and ordered:-
(i) Applicants are entitled for one notional increment falling due on the very next date i.e. 01st July of the relevant years.
(ii) The respondents are directed to issue the revised PPOs within a period of four months and will pay the arrears thereof in favour of the applicants, within the aforesaid period of four months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order, otherwise the simple interest will also be payable at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of actual payment. However, the arrears of Applicants-1, 3-6 will be payable only for the period of three years just before the date of filing of this O.A. i.e. on 30.05.2024."
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3
3. It is submitted by the petitioners that despite service of the certified copy of the order and repeated representations, the respondents failed to comply within the stipulated period and therefore have committed wilful disobedience.
4. Notices were issued. The respondent has filed a compliance affidavit stating that revised PPOs have been issued to applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 after granting one notional increment, in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.02.2025 passed in MA Diary No. 2400/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 (Union of India v. M. Siddaraj). It is further stated that arrears have been restricted as per the Apex Court's clarification. However, the claim of applicant No. 4, namely Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, has been denied by the respondents through a reasoned speaking order dated 01.04.2025, citing past disciplinary penalty and relying upon para 7 of DOPT's O.M. dated 14.10.2024 read with Railway Board's letter dated 03.12.2024.
5. The petitioners dispute the correctness of the stand taken by the respondents and submit that the compliance is incomplete and contrary to the Tribunal's order in respect of applicant No. 4.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of one notional increment in terms of para 10 of RBE No.103/2008 dated 04.11.2008. The relevant para 10 of RBE No.103/2008 is reproduced as below:-
"10. Date of next Increment in the revised pay structure - There will be uniform date of annual increment, viz., 1st July of every year. Employees SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4 completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st of July will be eligible to be granted the increment. The first increment after fixation of pay on 1.1.2006 in the revised pay structure will be granted on 1.7.2006 for those employees for whom the date of next increment was between Ist July, 2006 to Ist January, 2007.
Provided that in the case of persons who had been drawing maximum of the existing scale for more than a year as on the 1st day of January, 2006, the next increment in the revised pay structure shall be allowed on the 1st, day of January, 2006, Thereafter, the provision of Rule 10 would apply."
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order dated 01.04.2025 passed in respect of applicant No. 4, we find that there is no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal. This Court has limited jurisdiction to examine the action taken by the respondents in purported compliance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (Civil Appeal Nos. 1294-96 of 1996) has held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to examine the correctness of the action taken by the administrative authorities while purporting to comply with the Tribunal's directions. Unless the disobedience is wilful, contempt cannot be made out. In the present case, the respondents have passed a speaking order denying the claim of applicant No. 4 and have granted relief to the other applicants. Whether the denial is legally sustainable or not cannot be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction.
8. Similarly, in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (2021 SCC OnLine SC 29), the Apex Court has held that wilful and deliberate disobedience must be clearly established before invoking contempt powers.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5
9. Applying the above principles, we find that the respondents have issued revised PPOs to the applicants and have passed detailed orders in purported compliance of the Tribunal's directions. Whether the decision is correct or erroneous cannot be examined in contempt proceedings.
10. In view of the compliance placed on record and in absence of any material to establish wilful disobedience, we do not find any reason to proceed further in this contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped. Notices issued to the respondent are discharged.
11. If aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2025 passed in respect of applicant No. 4 in compliance, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
12. All pending MAs stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Shakuntala/
SHAKUNTALA VERMA