W.P.(C) 9823/2026 p. 1 $~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9823/2026 & CM APPL. 45792/2026 PREM RAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suresh Sharma, Adv. versus DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU AND ORS .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 21.07.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition assails order dated 13 January 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in CP 707/2025 in OA 496/2021. 2. We have heard Mr. Suresh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. CP 707/2025 alleged contempt of order dated 18 March 2025 passed by the Tribunal in OA 496/2021. 4. Mr. Sharma has drawn our attention to para 9 of the said order which, according to him, was flouted by the respondent. W.P.(C) 9823/2026 p. 2 5. Para 9 of the order dated 18 March 2025 in OA 496/2021 reads thus: “9. In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, the O.A. is partly allowed, the penalty order dated 18.03.2020 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority from the stage of Disagreement Note, the respondents shall be at liberty to issue a fresh Disagreement Note and complete the proceedings, if so advised” 6. CP 707/2025 was preferred on the ground that the retiral benefits of the petitioner were not being revisited on the basis of actual pay to which he was entitled, and that the retiral benefits paid to him were not as per the law. 7. The Tribunal has, in the order dated 13 January 2026, under challenge in the present writ petition, held, correctly, that such a contention could not form subject matter of contempt jurisdiction. Contempt lies only in the face of any wilful and contumacious disobedience of an order passed by the Court. 8. For an order to be disobeyed, it must contain executable directions. 9. Para 9 of the order dated 18 March 2025 merely sets aside the penalty awarded to the petitioner and restores the status quo from the stage of the disagreement note. It says nothing more. There is no whisper of any finding, or direction, regarding the retiral benefits to which the petitioner could be entitled, much less the actual quantum of W.P.(C) 9823/2026 p. 3 benefits to which he would be entitled. The Tribunal could not have been called upon to examine whether the petitioner was being paid his retiral benefits as per law, in contempt proceedings. 10. We, therefore, find no error in the decision of the Tribunal in declining to entertain the contempt petition. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. C. HARI SHANKAR, J. VINOD KUMAR, J. JULY 21, 2026 dsn