https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286108 The Court held that contempt jurisdiction could not be used to claim promotion-related benefits that the petitioners had not already been enjoying under the earlier directions. Those directions were read as restoring only existing benefits after passing the prescribed test, while any further entitlement depended on departmental approval, recognition, and service conditions. Because the grievance raised a fresh cause of action, it had to be pursued in independent substantive proceedings and not through contempt. No wilful disobedience was made out, and the contempt petitions were not maintainable. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:10:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286108 The Court held that contempt jurisdiction could not be used to claim promotion-related benefits that the petitioners had not already been enjoying under the earlier directions. Those directions were read as restoring only existing benefits after passing the prescribed test, while any further entitlement depended on departmental approval, recognition, and service conditions. Because the grievance raised a fresh cause of action, it had to be pursued in independent substantive proceedings and not through contempt. No wilful disobedience was made out, and the contempt petitions were not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286108