Court Orders Release of Funds to Avoid Contempt, Seeks Info on Tribunal Vacancies

The court addressed contempt of court for failure to release amounts despite a stay order, directing their release within three days to avoid contempt proceedings. Concerns were raised about vacancies in the Tribunal's leadership positions, prompting the court to seek detailed information on steps taken to fill the Chairman's post. Dissatisfied with the lack of clarity in the status report on the Tribunal's functioning, the court requested comprehensive details. The decision on imposing an automatic stay on filing appeals due to the Tribunal's absence was deferred for further consideration on its feasibility and implications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of court for not releasing amounts despite a stay order.
2. Constitution of the Tribunal and appointment process.
3. Lack of clarity in the status report regarding the Tribunal's functioning.
4. Consideration of passing an order for automatic stay on filing appeals due to Tribunal's absence.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of contempt of court for not releasing amounts despite a stay order. The petitioner's senior counsel highlighted the non-compliance with the court's order. The ASG accepted the lapse, acknowledging it as prima facie contempt. The court directed the release of the amounts within three days to avoid contempt proceedings. The ASG's assurance led the court to withhold the contempt notice temporarily.

2. The judgment delves into the matter of the Tribunal's constitution and the appointment process. It was noted that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was appointed in accordance with a specific order. However, concerns were raised about the vacancies in the Tribunal's leadership positions. The court sought detailed information on the steps taken to fill the vacant post of the Chairman, dating back to six months before the previous Chairman's term ended, up to the recent departmental order.

3. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the status report's lack of clarity regarding the Tribunal's functioning. It highlighted the incomplete picture presented and requested comprehensive details, supported by documents, outlining the actions taken from the period preceding the Chairman's departure in September 2019 until the recent departmental order in October 2021. This scrutiny aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the Tribunal's operational continuity.

4. Additionally, the judgment deferred the decision on a broader issue concerning the automatic stay on filing appeals due to the Tribunal's absence. The court pondered whether imposing an automatic stay would alleviate the burden on litigants who often seek interim relief from the High Court due to the Tribunal's unavailability. The matter was scheduled for further consideration on a specified date to deliberate on the feasibility and implications of such an order.

---