DR J R SHARMA vs TANMAY KUMAR SECRATARY, BOTANICAL SURVEY OF INDIA on 27 October 2026

1. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the respondents are in the process of filing a compliance reply affidavit to the order dated 16.07.2025. He seeks a further four weeks to place on record the full compliance report.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant appears through VC and submits that, vide order dated 22.09.2026, a specific direction was issued to implement the order in question, failing which Respondent No.1 shall remain present before the Court. However, today, neither Respondent No.1 is present before the Court nor has any compliance affidavit been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant thus presses for consideration of initiation of contempt proceedings.

3. Heard. We have considered the matter.

4. Order dated 16.07.2025 in O.A./524/2022 was passed directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for in situ promotion from the date of eligibility to Scientist E with effect from 01.01.2003 and Scientist F with effect from 01.01.2008, with all consequential benefits including re-fixation of pay, pension and arrears in accordance with the relevant rules.

5. Notice in the present Contempt Petition was issued on 20.03.2026. The respondents have neither filed any compliance affidavit/ Status report nor Respondent No.1 has appeared before the Court in person.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bijay Kumar Mahanty Vs. Jadu, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 644, Their Lordships held as under:- “5. It is of paramount public interest that the people, after obtaining an order of the court, should not feel helpless or without any remedy when such order is flouted.

6. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688] this Court said that: (SCC p. 315, para 7) “It may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury as the expression ‘contempt of court’ may seem to suggest, but, to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.”

7. The rule of law is the foundation of the democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the orders of the court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to the society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. This Tribunal is conscious of the fact that while exercising restrain in inititiating the Contempt Proceedings, various opportunities have been afforded to the respondents to file compliance reply affidavit. On 22.09.2026, the respondents were directed to positively file compliance reply affidavit, failing which, the Tribunal observed that concerned respondents may be summoned.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents, as a last indulgence, one more opportunity is granted to the respondents to file full compliance reply affidavit on or before the next date of hearing, failing which, Respondent No.1 shall remain present before this Tribunal to explain the continued disobedience of order dated 16.07.2025 of this Tribunal.

9. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of the order passed today to the learned counsel for the respondents and the respondents through Speed Post and all other modes for information and compliance.

10. List the case on 15.12.2026 for further consideration.

11. The order passed today is to be uploaded on the website.

12. Order Dasti.

Rajinder Kashyap Member (A) Ajay Pratap Singh Member (J) Karan ( steno 'd' )