Sujata ranjan vs SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY on 7 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA Order Sheet Item no.: 20 C.P./25/2026 (RANCHI) [ CONTEMPT ] In O.A./369/2025 TRANSFER Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 3 Order Dated: 07/10/2026 SUJATA RANJAN Vs SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri Rohit Kumar Singh.

For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri Pravin Kumar Pandey. Order of The Tribunal Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging non- compliance/delayed compliance of the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 369 of 2025. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken objection to the show cause that has been filed by the respondents, stating that delayed compliance of the Order has resulted in certain loses to her which are irreparable. In fact, looking at the Order of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 369 of 2025 dated 02.12.2025, it is found that there was a clear direction which was unambiguous and lucid that within 30 days from passing of the Order, the applicant was to be released for office of RDSO/Lucknow by modifying the previous order of relieving for the office of DRM(P)/Delhi Division.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not complied with the aforesaid order within the time stipulated therein and that the delay has caused certain consequential losses and prejudice to the petitioner. On perusal of the order dated 02.12.2025, we find that the direction contained therein was clear, specific and capable of compliance. There was neither any ambiguity requiring interpretation nor any liberty granted to the respondents to substitute the direction by adopting an alternative course of action. The respondents were, therefore, required to comply with the order in its letter and spirit within the stipulated period. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents, bona fide and with a view to avoid hardship to the applicant of the O.A., had entered into correspondence with the concerned office of RDSO, Lucknow regarding the applicant's joining. It is contended that the steps taken by the respondents were in good faith. We are unable to accept the aforesaid explanation as constituting compliance with the specific direction of this Tribunal. Once a clear direction had been issued by the Tribunal, the respondents were required to comply with the same in the manner in which it was passed. Correspondence or administrative steps taken in contemplation of compliance cannot, by themselves, be treated as actual compliance of a specific direction of the Tribunal. At the same time, the jurisdiction in the present Contempt Petition is confined to a narrow conspectus of examining whether the order of this Tribunal has been complied with or not. This Tribunal, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, cannot enlarge, modify, rewrite or supplement the substantive directions contained in the original order. Likewise, the question as to whether the alleged delay has caused any monetary or other consequential loss to the applicant is not required to be adjudicated in the present proceedings unless such question arises directly for determining compliance with the original order. In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the alleged consequential loss or expressing any opinion thereon, the respondents are directed to issue a modified/revised order strictly in terms of the order dated 02.12.2025 passed in O.A. No. 369 of 2025, specifically providing for the applicant's release for the office of RDSO, Lucknow, in substitution of the earlier relieving arrangement relating to DRM(P), Delhi Division. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, undertakes that the aforesaid modified/revised order shall be issued within 15 days from today. It is made clear that the respondents shall not, while issuing the modified/revised order, introduce any condition or arrangement inconsistent with the directions contained in the order dated 02.12.2025. The question of any consequential claim, if otherwise legally maintainable, is left open to be considered by the competent authority/forum in accordance with law as and when it is agitated. No opinion can be expressed by this Tribunal in the course of consideration of this Contempt Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of the modified/revised order in the aforesaid terms would sufficiently address the grievance insofar as compliance with the order of this Tribunal is concerned.

In view of the undertaking given by the respondents and the directions recorded hereinabove, no further adjudication is called for at this stage. However, since the original order has admittedly not been implemented in the precise manner and within the stipulated period, the Contempt Petition is not being finally closed today. List the matter on 02.11.2026 for reporting compliance. The respondents shall place the modified/revised order same on record by way of an affidavit before the next date.

KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA Member (A) Justice Narendra Kumar Johari Member (J) Binay Prasad ( ps )