Rajeshwar Prasad vs POST BIHAR CIRCLE on 26 October 2026

1. Shri Anil Kumar, Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Harding Rd, Veerchand Patel Road Area, Patna, Bihar- 800001 and his successors.

2. Shri Ashutosh Aditya, Superintendent of Post Offices, Champaran Division, Motihari- 845401 and his successors.

3. Shri Bijay Prasad, Postmaster, Motihari HPO, Belbawana, Motihari- 845401 and his successors.

4. Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sub Postmaster, Semra SO, East Champaran Division, Motihari- 845401 and his successors.

........ Respondents

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal

For The Applicant(s): Mr. Nilesh Sinha

For The Respondent(s): Mr. T. N. Thakur

O R D E R (ORAL) Per : Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member

1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The present Contempt Petition has been instituted alleging non-compliance with the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 050/00918/2024. The relevant Para 7 of the aforesaid order is being reproduced as under: “Respondent authorities are directed to start payment to the applicant in accordance with direction of Superintendent of Posts. Champaran Division, Motihari. The all due payment should be made to the applicant as part-time Contingent Paid Sweeper within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.” The question for consideration is whether the materials placed on record establish wilful disobedience of the aforesaid order by the respondents so as to warrant the exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a reply as well as a supplementary reply to the show-cause notice. It is

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal submitted that the directions issued by this Tribunal have been complied with and that the payment in question was offered to the petitioner pursuant to the said order. In support of this submission, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Annexures R/4 and R/5 appended to the reply, as well as the communication vide Annexure R/6 dated 29.01.2025 issued to the petitioner in connection with the payment. According to the respondents, the petitioner declined to accept the amount offered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has averred that he is not being paid as per the order of the Tribunal as part time contingent paid sweeper and that is the reason for refusal to accept the payment. But he has not submitted the reason to the respondents despite clear mention in Annexure R/6 to specify the reasons for not accepting the payment. Learned counsel for the respondents have referred to the very subject recorded in Annexure R/4 that reads as coolie charge (Safaiwala) emphasising that it is as per their bona fide understanding of the order of the Tribunal.

5. The jurisdiction to punish for civil contempt requires wilful disobedience of a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. This means that the action or failure to act must be intentional, conscious, and deliberate rather than accidental, casual, or due to a bona fide understanding of

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal the order without the requisite element of wilfulness. It is the settled law that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with caution and that deliberate and conscious disobedience, rather than mere non-compliance, must be established.

6. It is equally well settled that the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to examining compliance with the directions actually issued in the original order. The Tribunal cannot, in contempt jurisdiction, reopen the original adjudication or enlarge the scope of the directions contained therein.

7. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the materials placed on record. The documents relied upon by the respondents indicate that the payment contemplated pursuant to the order dated 28.11.2024 was offered to the petitioner and that a communication dated 29.01.2025 was issued in that connection. The respondents maintain that the petitioner declined to receive the payment.

8. On the materials presently available, and in the absence of sufficient material establishing that the offer was illusory or that the respondents deliberately withheld the payment despite the petitioner being willing to receive it, we are unable to conclude that the respondents have acted with the wilful

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal and contumacious intent necessary to sustain a finding of civil contempt.

9. We clarify that the present finding is confined to the question of contempt. The Tribunal is not called upon in these proceedings to adjudicate any independent dispute concerning the petitioner's entitlement or the computation of any amount beyond the directions contained in the original order.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no sufficient ground is made out for continuing the contempt proceedings or for initiating punitive action against the respondents.

11. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dropped.

12. Notices stand discharged.

13. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/- (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kr. Johari) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

sl

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal