The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on August 19, 2025, disposed of a contempt petition filed against Punjab National Bank (PNB) for non-compliance with a 2018 order. While discharging the contempt notice, a bench comprising CJI B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the bank to pay a lump sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation, acknowledging the “protracted delay in disbursal of the dues” to a former employee whose litigation had been pending since the 1980s.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from the dismissal of A.K. Jayaprakash, a Manager with the erstwhile Nedungadi Bank Ltd., over alleged irregularities. The dismissal was successfully challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947, who set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement.
After a remand from the Madras High Court on the issue of limitation, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour condoned the delay and again found the dismissal unjustified, noting there was “no mala fide or dishonesty involved in the conduct” and that no loss had been caused to the bank. The authority reinstated Mr. Jayaprakash.
The bank’s challenge to this decision was dismissed by a single judge of the Madras High Court, who upheld the reinstatement but limited back wages to 60%. A subsequent appeal by the bank to the Division Bench was also dismissed. In the interim, Nedungadi Bank Ltd. merged with Punjab National Bank (PNB).
PNB then filed Civil Appeal Nos. 6732-6733 of 2009 before the Supreme Court. On January 17, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, stating, “We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is made clear that the outstanding amount be paid within a period of three months.”
The Contempt Petition
The contempt petitions were filed by Mr. Jayaprakash (and pursued by his legal representatives after his demise) alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s three-month deadline for payment. The bank eventually disbursed arrears of salary, gratuity, and provident fund dues in several tranches between March 2019 and June 2023.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-bank’s failure to pay within the mandated three months constituted “wilful and deliberate disobedience.” It was further argued that the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits which were wrongfully withheld, thereby aggravating the contempt.
In response, counsel for the bank submitted that the entire amount as directed had been paid, albeit belatedly. The delay was attributed to “administrative difficulties arising out of the amalgamation of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. with Punjab National Bank and the non-availability of legacy records.” The bank also argued that the 2018 judgment contained no direction for the grant of pension, and therefore, its non-payment could not be a basis for contempt.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court observed that there was “no dispute that the amount was not paid within the period of three months.” The central question, the Court noted, was “whether the delayed compliance constitutes wilful disobedience so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
Citing its previous rulings in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Others and Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another, the bench reiterated that for civil contempt, the breach must be “deliberate and intentional.” Applying this principle, the Court found that the material on record did not demonstrate that the delay was a result of “any wilful or contumacious intent.”
The judgment stated, “The explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger and retrieval of records dating back over three decades. While such circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying with orders of this Court, the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay.”
Regarding the claim for pension, the Court held that contempt jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for asserting new claims. Citing Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others, the bench observed, “Contempt jurisdiction is not a forum for asserting new claims or seeking substantive reliefs which were neither raised nor granted earlier.”
However, the Court took serious note of the prolonged delay. “At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that the Petitioner, who was dismissed in 1985 and secured favourable orders as early as 2004, attained the age of superannuation in or around 2006,” the bench observed. It concluded that “a reasonable lump sum payment is warranted, both in acknowledgement/recognition of the protracted delay in disbursal of the dues and to bring a quietus to future litigation by granting compensation.”
Final Directions
The Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petitions with the following directions:
- The prayer for initiating contempt proceedings was disposed of, and the rule issued was discharged.
- The claim for pensionary benefits was rejected as it did not form part of the original directions.
- The respondent-bank was ordered to pay Rs. 3,00,000 to the widow of the deceased petitioner within eight weeks, failing which interest at 8% would be payable.
- No further proceedings on the subject matter shall be entertained upon compliance with the payment direction.
