Contempt Of Courts Act | Personal Recovery Of Costs From Officials' Salaries Uncalled For Once Order Is Complied With And Contempt Is Purged: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Considering the detailed explanation given by the appellants in their compliance affidavit filed before the Contempt Court as well as the disbursal of the payment of more than Rs.4 crores to the respondents and deposit of costs, this Court is of the view that the direction for recovery of the costs from the salaries of the appellants is not called for." Setting aside a Contempt Court direction deducting costs from the personal salaries of government officials, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that when substantive compliance of judicial directions has taken place and the contempt is purged, punitive recovery from officers' salaries is not justified.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur held on October 13, 2026, that administrative delays resulting from procedural file movements and the verification of sensitive records cannot warrant such penal deductions once substantial compliance and payment have been executed.

The dispute arose out of a writ petition wherein a Single Judge on February 16, 2018, directed the Ministry of Defence authorities to calculate and disburse revised rates of nursing allowance arrears to the respondents within four months. Following unsuccessful appellate challenges before a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal and the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, the respondents initiated contempt proceedings alleging willful non-compliance. In the contempt proceedings, the learned Single Judge imposed costs of Rs. 3 lakhs on the appellant-officials, directing that the sum be deducted from their individual monthly salaries.

Whether an order directing recovery of costs from the personal salaries of public officers for delayed execution of judicial orders is sustainable when substantive compliance has already been established and the contempt purged?

Whether administrative delays necessitated by verification of records and bona fide pursuit of statutory appellate remedies amount to deliberate contumacious defiance?

The Division Bench underscored that the issue of defiance of a judicial mandate primarily subsists between the court and the alleged contemnor, aiming at the enforcement of the rule of law rather than penalizing officials who faced genuine procedural impediments.

Appellants demonstrated bona fide intent by complying with the substantive directions and disbursing entitlement arrears.

The Court examined the factual submissions presented by the Additional Solicitor General, which detailed the chronological steps taken following the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on March 13, 2026. The record showed that legal sanction was obtained on June 24, 2026, and the claims of 50 respondents were bifurcated between serving and superannuated employees. The authorities had released arrears amounting to over Rs. 4.11 crore following physical verification of sensitive financial files across diverse divisions.

Procedural delays stemming from administrative verification do not reflect deliberate defiance of court mandates.

The Bench acknowledged that the movement of files between different defense establishments and the verification of individual service sheets justified the time consumed in releasing financial benefits. The Court observed:

"Concededly, order passed by the Writ Court has been duly complied with. Even the costs imposed by Contempt Court have been deposited, and contempt has been purged. As to whether there is a defiance of a direction passed by this Court, is a matter between this Court and the alleged contemnor."

Purging of contempt renders punitive deductions from personal salaries unwarranted.

Evaluating the compliance affidavit showing that the entire arrears of Rs. 4,11,03,671/- had been disbursed and the imposed cost of Rs. 3 lakhs stood deposited, the Division Bench concluded that continuing the penal mandate of salary deductions was unnecessary and inappropriate under contempt jurisdiction.

The High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the Single Judge's directions recovering costs from the salaries of the appellants, and consequently disposed of the underlying contempt petition.

Date of Decision: October 13, 2026