Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

​Kishore​ ​Kumar​ ​Bharat​ ​son​ ​of​ ​Sh.​ ​RR​ ​Bharat​ ​age​ ​65​ ​years​ ​(Retd.​ ​Controller​ ​of​ ​Stores​ ​and​ ​Purchase​ ​(CoSP),​ ​resident​ ​of​ ​House​ ​No.57/4,​ ​Sector​ ​'C'​ ​Exit​ ​Defence​ ​Colony,​ ​Behind​ ​Guga​ ​Madi,​ ​Kalarhedi​ ​Road,​ ​Ambala Cantt. Haryana-133001.​ ​...Applicant​ ​[By Advocate: Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal]​ ​VERSUS​ ​1.​ ​Dr.​​Shekhar​​C​​Mande,​​the​​Director​​General,​​Council​​of​​Scientific​​&​ ​Industrial​ ​Research,​ ​Anusandhan​ ​Bhawan,​ ​2,​ ​Rafi​ ​Marg,​ ​New​ ​Delhi-​ ​110001.​ ​2.​ ​Prof.​ ​S.​ ​Anantha​ ​Ramakrishnan,​ ​the​ ​Director,​ ​CSIR-Central​ ​Scientific Instruments Organization, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh - 160030.​ ​3.​ ​Sh.​ ​S.D.​ ​Rishi,​ ​the​ ​Administrative​ ​Officer,​ ​CSIR-Central​ ​Scientific​ ​Instruments Organization, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh - 160030.​ ​...Respondents​ ​[By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Ms. Jyotika Panesar]​ ​ R D E R​ O ​Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):​ ​1.​ ​Petitioner​ ​has​ ​preferred​ ​the​ ​present​ ​Contempt​ ​Petition​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​17​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Administrative​ ​Tribunals​ ​Act,​ ​1985​ ​read​ ​with​ ​Central​ ​Administrative​ ​Tribunal​ ​(Contempt​ ​of​ ​Court)​ ​Rules,​ ​1992​ ​praying​ ​that​ ​the​ ​orders​ ​dated​ ​10.12.2019​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​in​ ​O.A.No.060/141/2019​ ​(Annexure​ ​CP-1)​ ​be​ ​got​ ​implemented,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​be​ ​summoned​ ​and​ ​punished​ ​for​ ​willful​ ​and​ ​intentional​ ​disobedience of the said order passed by this Tribunal.​ ​2.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​submits​ ​that​ ​he​ ​retired​ ​from​ ​the​ ​service​ ​of​ ​CSIR-CSIO​ ​on​ ​30.11.2016​ ​as​ ​Controller​ ​of​ ​Stores​ ​and​ ​Purchase​ ​upon​ 2026.03.27 SHIVAM 10:09:23 ​attaining​ ​the​ ​age​ ​of​ ​superannuation.​ ​At​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​retirement,​ ​no​ +05'30' ​disciplinary,​​vigilance​​or​​criminal​​proceedings​​were​​pending​​against​​him.​ ​2​ ​(C.P.No.060/12/2022)​ ​However,​​his​​retiral​​dues​​were​​released​​belatedly,​​viz.​​leave​​encashment​ ​was​ ​paid​ ​after​ ​about​ ​four​ ​months,​ ​and​ ​gratuity​ ​and​ ​commutation​ ​of​ ​pension​ ​were​ ​released​ ​after​ ​about​ ​nine​ ​months​ ​from​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​retirement.​ ​Aggrieved​ ​by​ ​rejection​ ​of​ ​his​ ​claim​ ​for​ ​interest​ ​on​ ​delayed​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​retiral​ ​benefits,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​filed​ ​O.A.​ ​No.​ ​060/141/2019​ ​before​​this​​Tribunal​​challenging​​order​​dated​​12.02.2018.​​Though​​initially​ ​interest​​was​​claimed​​on​​delayed​​payment​​of​​leave​​encashment,​​gratuity​ ​and​ ​commutation​ ​of​​pension,​​on​​statement​​made​​by​​counsel,​​the​​claim​ ​stood​​confined​​to​​interest​​on​​delayed​​payment​​of​​commutation​​value​​of​ ​pension.​ ​3.​ ​Vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​10.12.2019​ ​(Annexure​ ​CP-1),​ ​the​ ​O.A.​ ​was​ ​allowed. Operative portion of the order reads as under:​ ​"11.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​present​ ​case,​ ​admittedly,​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​retirement,​ ​neither​ ​departmental​ ​nor​ ​criminal​ ​proceedings​ ​were​ ​pending​ ​against​ ​applicant.​ ​The​​amount​​of​​gratuity​​and​​commutation​​value​​of​​pension​​was​​withheld​​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​for​ ​the​ ​reason​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​given​ ​extension​​for​​retaining​ ​Govt.​ ​accommodation​ ​from​ ​01.12.2016​ ​to​ ​31.1.2017.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​not​ ​in​​dispute​ ​that​​applicant​​was​​paid​​provisional​​pension​​and​​ultimately​​full​​pension​​was​ ​given​ ​on​ ​01.9.2017.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​clear​ ​from​ ​indicated​​facts​​that​​despite​​repeated​ ​requests​ ​by​ ​respondent​ ​no.2​ ​to​ ​respondent​ ​no.1​ ​to​ ​issue​ ​vigilance​ ​clearance​ ​certificate​ ​as​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​ ​case​ ​pending​ ​against​ ​the​ ​applicant,​ ​respondent​​no.1​​has​​not​​issued​​vigilance​​clearance​​certificate​​and​​for​​that​ ​applicant​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​penalized​ ​for​ ​non-release​ ​of​ ​payment​ ​at​​the​​relevant​ ​time.​​Thus,​​applicant​​is​​held​​entitled​​to​​award​​of​​interest​​on​​the​​amount​​of​ ​commutation​ ​value​ ​of​ ​pension​ ​from​ ​the​ ​date​ ​when​ ​it​ ​became​ ​due​​till​​the​ ​date it was released @ applicable to GPF amount."​ ​4.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​Respondent​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​issued​ ​Office​ ​Order​ ​dated​ ​11.03.2020​ ​(Annexure​​CP-2),​​calculating​​interest​​of​​Rs.​​49,508/-​ ​on​ ​the​ ​commuted​ ​value​ ​of​ ​pension​ ​(Rs.​ ​8,33,232/-)​ ​for​ ​the​ ​period​ ​December​ ​2016​ ​to​ ​August​​2017.​​However,​​instead​​of​​releasing​​the​​said​ ​interest,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​since​​the​​applicant​​had​​been​​paid​ 2026.03.27 ​full​​provisional​​pension​​during​​that​​period,​​he​​was​​required​​to​​refund​​the​ SHIVAM 10:09:23 +05'30' ​commuted​​portion​​of​​pension​​amounting​​to​​Rs.​​76,266/-​​(Rs.​​8,474​​x​​9​ ​months),​​resulting​​in​​a​​net​​demand​​against​​him.​​The​​petitioner​​contends​ ​3​ ​(C.P.No.060/12/2022)​ ​that​ ​the​ ​net​ ​effect​ ​of​ ​the​ ​said​ ​order​ ​is​ ​non-compliance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​order​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​this​ ​Tribunal,​ ​as​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​paying​ ​interest​ ​as​ ​directed,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​​sought​​to​​adjust​​and​​recover​​amounts​​from​​him.​​The​ ​petitioner​ ​has​ ​disputed​ ​the​ ​recovery​ ​and​ ​further​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​even​ ​assuming​ ​recovery​ ​is​​permissible,​​the​​same​​cannot​​be​​adjusted​​against​ ​the​​implementation​​of​​the​​order​​of​​this​​Tribunal​​without​​due​​process​​and​ ​without​ ​affording​ ​him​ ​an​ ​opportunity​​of​​hearing.​​He​​also​​states​​that​​he​ ​has​ ​separately​ ​challenged​ ​the​ ​Office​ ​Orders​ ​dated​ ​11.03.2020​ ​and​ ​19.07.2021 by way of substantive proceedings.​ ​5.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​further​ ​avers​ ​that​ ​he​ ​addressed​ ​several​ ​representations​ ​and​ ​emails​ ​dated​ ​15.06.2020,​ ​08.07.2021,​​09.07.2021​ ​and​ ​22.11.2021​ ​requesting​​payment​​of​​the​​interest​​amount​​in​​terms​​of​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​and​ ​asserting​ ​that​ ​commutation​​could​​not​​be​ ​effected​ ​retrospectively.​ ​However,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​rejected​ ​his​​request​ ​vide​​order​​dated​​19.07.2021​​and​​did​​not​​release​​the​​interest​​amount.​​It​ ​is​ ​specifically​ ​pleaded​​that​​although​​the​​interest​​amount​​was​​calculated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​11.03.2020,​ ​it​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​paid.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​asserts​​that​​non-payment​​of​​interest​​amounts​​to​​non-implementation​​of​ ​the​ ​order​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​dated​ ​10.12.2019,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​attracts​ ​contempt​ ​proceedings​ ​against​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​on​ ​account​ ​of​ ​willful and intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal.​ ​6.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​contested​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​willful​ ​or​ ​intentional​ ​disobedience​​of​​the​​order​​dated​​10.12.2019​​passed​​by​​this​​Tribunal​​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​present​ ​Contempt​ ​Petition​ ​has​ ​been​ ​filed​ ​merely​ ​because​ ​the​ ​applicant​​is​​dissatisfied​​with​​the​​manner​​of​​compliance.​​It​​is​​asserted​​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​had​ ​confined​ ​relief​ ​only​ ​to​ ​grant​ ​of​ 2026.03.27 ​interest​ ​on​ ​the​ ​commutation​ ​value​ ​of​ ​pension​ ​and​ ​had​ ​not​ ​directed​ SHIVAM 10:09:23 +05'30' ​payment of 100% pension along with commutation.​ ​4​ ​(C.P.No.060/12/2022)​ ​7.​ ​The​​respondents​​assert​​that​​they​​have​​complied​​with​​the​​order​​by​ ​calculating​ ​the​ ​interest​​payable​​on​​the​​commuted​​value​​of​​pension​​vide​ ​Office​ ​Order​ ​dated​ ​11.03.2020.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​had​ ​been​ ​allowed​ ​to​ ​draw​ ​100%​ ​full​ ​pension​ ​as​ ​provisional​ ​pension​ ​from​ ​01.12.2016​ ​to​ ​31.08.2017​ ​due​ ​to​ ​pendency​ ​of​ ​vigilance​ ​clearance.​​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​as​​per​​Pension​​Commutation​​Rules,​​once​ ​commutation​ ​becomes​ ​effective,​ ​only​ ​60%​ ​of​ ​pension​ ​is​ ​payable​ ​and​ ​40%​ ​stands​ ​commuted.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​provision​ ​under​ ​the​ ​rules​ ​permitting​ ​simultaneous​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​full​ ​pension​ ​and​​commuted​​value​​of​​pension.​​It​​is​​further​​contended​​by​​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​since​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​had​ ​already​ ​drawn​ ​100%​ ​pension​ ​during​ ​the​ ​period​ ​in​ ​question,​ ​adjustment/recovery​ ​of​ ​the​ ​excess​ ​40%​ ​component​ ​was​ ​necessary​ ​for​ ​implementing​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal,​ ​and​ ​accordingly,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​requested​ ​to​ ​deposit​ ​Rs.​ ​26,758/-,​ ​being​ ​the​ ​excess​ ​amount​ ​calculated​ ​after​ ​adjustment.​​The​​respondents​ ​maintain​ ​that​ ​this​ ​action​ ​is​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​rules​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​amount to non-compliance of the order of this Tribunal.​ ​8.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​is​ ​effectively​ ​seeking​ ​a​ ​double​ ​benefit,​ ​namely​ ​100%​ ​pension​ ​along​ ​with​ ​interest​ ​on​ ​the​ ​commuted​​value​​for​​the​​same​​period,​​which​​is​​not​​permissible​​under​​the​ ​applicable​ ​pension​ ​rules.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​emphasize​ ​that​ ​the​ ​order​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​did​ ​not​ ​direct​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​full​ ​pension​ ​along​ ​with​ ​interest on commutation and therefore no contempt is made out.​ ​9.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​​submitted​​by​​the​​respondents​​that​​the​​applicant​​himself​ ​has​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​commutation​ ​could​ ​only​ ​be​ ​effective​ ​from​ ​01.09.2017,​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​he​ ​cannot​ ​claim​ ​interest​ ​from​ ​01.12.2016​ ​while​ ​retaining​​full​​pension​​for​​that​​period.​​The​​respondents​​assert​​that​ 2026.03.27 ​the​ ​issue​ ​involves​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​pension​ ​rules​ ​and,​ ​at​ ​best,​​raises​​a​ SHIVAM 10:09:23 +05'30' ​question​ ​of​ ​law​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​constituting​ ​contempt.​ ​Additionally,​ ​the​ ​respondents​​state​​that​​the​​applicant​​was​​informed​​through​​letters​​dated​ ​5​ ​(C.P.No.060/12/2022)​ ​11.03.2020​ ​and​ ​19.07.2021​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​position​​under​​the​​rules​​and​ ​was​​afforded​​opportunity​​to​​respond.​​As​​such,​​the​​allegation​​of​​violation​ ​of​​principles​​of​​natural​​justice​​is​​denied.​​Lastly,​​the​​respondents​​contend​ ​that​​the​​interest​​amount​​has​​already​​been​​calculated​​in​​compliance​​with​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​and​ ​that​ ​adjustment​ ​is​ ​required​ ​before​ ​effecting​ ​payment.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​having​ ​acted​ ​in​ ​accordance​​with​​rules​​and​​having​​taken​​steps​​to​​implement​​the​​order​​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal,​ ​there​​is​​no​​willful​​disobedience,​​and​​no​​contempt​​is​​made​ ​out.​ ​10.​ ​In​ ​rebuttal,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​reiterates​ ​that​ ​despite​ ​calculation​ ​of​ ​interest​ ​vide​ ​Office​ ​Order​ ​dated​ ​11.03.2020,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​release​ ​the​ ​interest​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​Rs.​ ​49,508/-​ ​for​ ​over​ ​eleven​ ​months,​ ​thereby​ ​not​ ​implementing​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​dated​ ​10.12.2019,​​and​​asserts​​that​​mere​​calculation​​of​​interest,​​without​​actual​ ​payment,​​cannot​​constitute​​compliance.​​The​​applicant​​contends​​that​​the​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​in​ ​simultaneously​ ​calculating​ ​the​ ​interest​ ​payable​ ​and​ ​demanding​ ​refund​ ​of​ ​Rs.​ ​76,266/-​ ​towards​ ​alleged​​excess​ ​payment of provisional pension amounts to deliberate non-compliance.​ ​11.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​argues​​that​​the​​respondents​​are​​attempting​ ​to​ ​enlarge​ ​the​ ​scope​ ​of​ ​contempt​ ​proceedings​ ​by​ ​introducing​ ​issues​ ​relating​​to​​pension​​commutation​​rules​​and​​alleged​​excess​​payment.​​The​ ​applicant​ ​argues​ ​that​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​directed​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​interest​​on​​delayed​​commutation​​value​​of​​pension,​​and​​the​​respondents​ ​are​ ​bound​ ​to​ ​implement​ ​the​ ​same​ ​in​ ​letter​ ​and​ ​spirit,​ ​and​ ​cannot​ ​withhold​ ​payment​ ​on​ ​grounds​ ​not​ ​forming​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​original​ ​adjudication.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​submits​ ​that​​even​​if​​any​​recovery​​is​ ​legally​ ​permissible,​ ​such​ ​recovery​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​adjusted​ ​against​ ​the​ 2026.03.27 ​implementation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal.​ ​The​ ​petitioner​ ​contends​ SHIVAM 10:09:23 +05'30' ​that​ ​any​ ​recovery,​ ​if​ ​at​ ​all​ ​contemplated,​ ​must​ ​be​ ​preceded​ ​by​ ​due​ ​process,​ ​including​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​a​ ​show​ ​cause​ ​notice​ ​and​ ​affording​ ​an​ ​6​ ​(C.P.No.060/12/2022)​ ​opportunity​ ​of​ ​hearing,​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice​ ​and Government instructions.​ ​12.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​the​ ​arguments​ ​addressed​ ​by​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​both sides and carefully pursued the material on record.​ ​13.​ ​The​ ​scope​ ​of​ ​jurisdiction​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​17​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Administrative​ ​Tribunals​ ​Act,​ ​1985​ ​read​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Administrative​ ​Tribunal​ ​(Contempt​ ​of​ ​Court)​ ​Rules,​ ​1992​ ​is​ ​limited.​ ​In​ ​contempt​ ​proceedings,​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​is​ ​required​ ​to​ ​examine​ ​whether​ ​there​ ​is​ ​willful​ ​and​ ​deliberate​ ​disobedience​ ​of​ ​its​ ​order.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​settled​ ​that​ ​contempt​ ​jurisdiction​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​invoked​ ​for​ ​adjudicating​ ​fresh​ ​disputes,​ ​reinterpreting​ ​the​ ​original​ ​judgment,​ ​or​ ​testing​ ​the​ ​correctness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​action​​taken​​in​​purported​​compliance.​​If​​compliance​​has​​been​​effected​​in​ ​substance​ ​and​ ​the​ ​dispute​ ​pertains​ ​to​ ​its​ ​manner​ ​or​ ​correctness,​ ​the​ ​remedy lies in substantive proceedings and not in contempt.​ ​14.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​present​ ​case,​ ​vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​10.12.2019​ ​passed​​in​​O.A.​ ​No.​ ​060/141/2019,​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​held​ ​that​ ​the​​applicant​​was​​entitled​​to​ ​interest​​on​​the​​amount​​of​​commutation​​value​​of​​pension​​from​​the​​date​​it​ ​became​ ​due​ ​till​ ​the​ ​date​ ​it​ ​was​ ​released,​ ​at​​the​​rate​​applicable​​to​​GPF.​ ​The​ ​operative​ ​direction​ ​was​ ​confined​ ​to​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​interest​ ​on​ ​delayed​ ​commutation​​value​​of​​pension.​​There​​was​​no​​specific​​direction​​regarding​ ​adjustment,​ ​mode​ ​of​ ​payment,​ ​or​ ​inter​ ​se​ ​treatment​ ​of​ ​provisional​ ​pension already paid.​ ​15.​ ​The​ ​record​ ​shows​ ​that​ ​the​​respondents,​​in​​purported​​compliance,​ ​issued​​Office​​Order​​dated​​11.03.2020,​​wherein​​the​​interest​​amount​​was​ ​calculated​ ​at​ ​Rs.​ ​49,508/-​ ​for​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​period.​ ​Thus,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​​taken​​steps​​to​​compute​​the​​interest​​payable​​in​​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​10.12.2019.​ ​The​ ​grievance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​is​ ​that​ 2026.03.27 ​instead​ ​of​ ​releasing​ ​the​ ​said​ ​amount,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​simultaneously​ SHIVAM 10:09:23 +05'30' ​raised​ ​a​ ​demand​ ​for​ ​refund​ ​of​ ​alleged​ ​excess​ ​payment​ ​on​ ​account​ ​of​ ​100%​ ​provisional​ ​pension​ ​drawn​ ​during​ ​the​​same​​period,​​resulting​​in​​a​ ​7​ ​(C.P.No.060/12/2022)​ ​net​ ​liability.​ ​The​ ​stand​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​had​ ​drawn​ ​100%​ ​provisional​ ​pension​ ​from​ ​01.12.2016​ ​to​ ​31.08.2017​ ​and​ ​that,​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Pension​ ​Commutation​ ​Rules,​ ​once​ ​commutation​ ​becomes​ ​effective,​​only​​60%​​of​​pension​​remains​​payable.​​The​​assertion​​made​​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​is​ ​that​ ​there​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​simultaneous​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​full​ ​pension​ ​and​ ​commuted​​portion,​​and​​therefore​​adjustment​​was​​required​ ​while implementing the order of this Tribunal.​ ​16.​ ​Whether​ ​the​ ​interpretation​ ​adopted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​is​ ​legally​ ​correct​ ​or​ ​not​ ​is​ ​a​ ​matter​ ​that​ ​may​ ​require​ ​adjudication​ ​in​​appropriate​ ​substantive​ ​proceedings.​ ​In​ ​fact,​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​has​ ​already​ ​challenged​ ​the​ ​Office​ ​Orders​ ​dated​ ​11.03.2020​ ​and​ ​19.07.2021​ ​in​ ​separate​ ​proceedings.​​The​​present​​contempt​​jurisdiction​​cannot​​be​​converted​​into​ ​a​​forum​​for​​deciding​​the​​legality​​or​​validity​​of​​such​​administrative​​action.​ ​The​ ​essential​ ​question​ ​before​ ​us​ ​is​ ​not​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​are​ ​right​ ​in​ ​seeking​ ​adjustment,​ ​but​ ​whether​ ​their​ ​conduct​ ​demonstrates​ ​willful and intentional disobedience of the order dated 10.12.2019.​ ​17.​ ​From​ ​the​ ​material​ ​on​ ​record,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​evident​ ​that​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​​calculated​​the​​interest​​payable​​in​​terms​​of​​the​​order​​passed​​by​​this​ ​Tribunal.​ ​Thereafter,​ ​based​ ​on​ ​their​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicable​ ​pension​ ​rules,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​asserted​ ​adjustment​ ​is​ ​necessary​ ​before​ ​actual​​release,​​and​​the​​dispute​​essentially​​relates​​to​​the​​manner​ ​of​ ​compliance​ ​and​ ​interpretation​ ​of​ ​pension​ ​rules.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​nothing​ ​on​ ​record​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​deliberately​ ​refused​ ​to​ ​implement​ ​the​ ​order​ ​or​ ​have​ ​acted​ ​in​ ​conscious​ ​disregard​ ​of​ ​the​ ​directions​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Tribunal.​ ​At​ ​best,​ ​the​ ​controversy​ ​pertains​ ​to​ ​the​ ​correctness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​method​ ​adopted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​in​ ​giving​ ​effect​ ​to​ ​the​ ​order.​ ​Such​ ​a​ ​dispute​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​adjudicated​ ​in​ ​contempt​ 2026.03.27 ​proceedings.​​It​​is​​well​​settled​​that​​where​​compliance​​is​​claimed​​and​​the​ SHIVAM 10:09:23 +05'30' ​dispute​ ​relates​ ​to​ ​its​ ​adequacy​ ​or​ ​legality,​ ​contempt​ ​is​ ​not​ ​made​ ​out​ ​8​ ​(C.P.No.060/12/2022)​ ​unless​​there​​is​​clear​​evidence​​of​​willful​​disobedience​​in​​conduct.​​Such​​an​ ​element of willfulness is conspicuously absent in the present case.​ ​18.​ ​Accordingly,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​considered​ ​view​ ​that​​no​​case​​of​​willful​ ​and​​intentional​​disobedience​​of​​the​​order​​dated​​10.12.2019​​is​​made​​out​ ​against​​the​​respondents.​​The​​Contempt​​Petition​​is,​​therefore,​​dismissed.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​stand​ ​discharged​ ​of​ ​the​ ​notice​ ​of​ ​contempt.​ ​The​ ​petitioner may pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law.​ ​(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI)​ ​(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)​ ​MEMBER (A)​ ​MEMBER (J)​ ​/s/​ 2026.03.27 SHIVAM 10:09:23 +05'30'