Union Of India And Anr vs G Sree Harsha

Court
Delhi High Court

$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010518172026
+ W.P.(C) 15898/2026, CM APPLs. 74491/2026 & 74492/2026
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, SPC
with Mr. Aman Kumar Pandey and Ms.
Aishwarya Awasthi, Advs.

versus

G SREE HARSHA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
ORDER (ORAL)
% 29.10.2026

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Aggrieved by the fact that by order dated 14 December 2023,
his pension had been permanently withheld, the respondent is
1
presently before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA
988/2026. In the said OA, the respondent, besides seeking substantive
relief of quashing of order dated 14 December 2023 also prayed, by
way of interim relief, that provisional pension be released to him.

2. By order dated 23 July 2026, the Tribunal directed release of
provisional pension to the respondent as interim relief pending
disposal of the OA. The order read thus:

1
“Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:12:54
W.P.(C) 15898/2026 Page 1 of 6

“Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

Previously, vide order dated 14.12.2023, the applicant was
penalized with the permanent withholding of 100% of his pension,
along with the permanent withholding of 100% of his admissible
gratuity.

The applicant challenged the said penalty in O.A. No. 544/2024
before the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal. The O.A. was
allowed vide order dated 18.03.2025, whereby the penalty order
dated 14.12.2023 was quashed and set aside. The respondents were
directed to pass an appropriate order after duly considering the
applicant's representation dated 02.11.2023. Subsequently, on
18.08.2025, the respondents passed a fresh order reimposing the
identical penalty. This fresh penalty order is impugned in the
present O.A.

It is noted that the applicant was compulsorily retired in the year
2019. Since the earlier penalty order was set aside by the
Hyderabad Bench, and the respondents have themselves stated that
the fresh order is in supersession of the earlier order dated
14.12.2023, the applicant is legally entitled to receive a provisional
pension for the intervening period between 14.12.2023 and
18.08.2025.

Accordingly, by way of an interim measure, the respondents are
directed to release the said provisional pension to the applicant as
expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of four
weeks from today.

In the meantime, the respondents shall file their counter affidavit.

Stand over to 06.10.2026 for further hearing.”


3. The petitioners never chose to challenge the said order, or to
comply with it, thereby compelling the respondent to re-approach the
Tribunal by way of CP 855/2026 for initiating contempt against the
petitioners.

4. In the said CP, the Tribunal has, instead of straightaway
proceeding to issue notice of contempt, displayed the latitude of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:12:54
W.P.(C) 15898/2026 Page 2 of 6

granting, vide order dated 8 October 2026, further time of seven days
to the petitioners to comply with its earlier order, failing which it has
stated that there would be no option but to secure the attendance of
Respondent 2 (in the CP) for further adjudication.

5. It is at this stage that the petitioners have decided to challenge
the order dated 23 July 2026 as well as the order dated 8 October
2026. The order dated 8 October 2026 reads thus:

“CP No 855/2026

Heard on admission.

The instant CP has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the
order dated 23.07.2026, whereby, by way of an ad-interim
measure, the respondents were directed to release the said
provisional pension to the applicant as expeditiously as possible,
and in any event within a period of four weeks from today. i.e.
23.07.2026.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents
are wilfully flouting the order in question and there was a
mandatory direction to comply with the order dated 23.07.2026
within a period of four weeks.

Issue notice.

Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGSE, appears on advance service,
accepts notice and service of notice to the respondents is waived
of.

The learned counsel for the respondents seeks four weeks' time to
file a full compliance affidavit.

This being a contempt matter, we reject the prayer for grant of four
weeks' time to the respondents as there was a mandatory direction
to comply with the order dated 23.07.2026 within a period of four
weeks.

The respondents are directed to file a full compliance affidavit
within a period of 7 days, failing which we shall be constrained to
summon respondent No. 02 along with the record of the case for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:12:54
W.P.(C) 15898/2026 Page 3 of 6

just and proper adjudication of the matter.

MA No 4897/2026

The instant MA has been filed on behalf of the applicant in the OA
seeking direction to implement the order dated 23.07.2026 passed
in OA No. 988/2026 and direct the respondents to pay interest @
18% per annum compounded monthly for the amount due and
admissible to the applicant.

Issue notice.

Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGSE, appears on advance service,
accepts notice and service of notice to the respondents is waived
of.

The learned counsel for the respondents may seek instructions/file
reply within a period of 7 days.

OA No 988/2026

Pleadings are stated to be complete.

List the OA on 21.10.2026 along with CP No. 855/2026 & MA
No.4897/2026

The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of the order passed
today to Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the
respondents and respondent No. 02 through all modes of
communication for information and compliance.”

6. We have heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned Senior Panel
Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, learned
Counsel for the respondent.

7. To a query from the Court as to whether the Tribunal did not
possess the jurisdiction to pass an order of provisional pension at an
interim stage, Mr. Pandey fairly acknowledges that it did possess
jurisdiction to pass the order.

8. However, submits Mr. Pandey, the respondent had initially
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:12:54
W.P.(C) 15898/2026 Page 4 of 6

approached the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal which, after
quashing the order of penalty of the respondent directed that a fresh
decision be taken by the petitioners. As per his submission, as the
Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal, at that stage, did not direct release
of provisional pension, the Tribunal, in the fresh OA instituted by the
respondent against the de novo order passed by the Competent
Authority, should not have done so.

9. We frankly admit our difficulty in comprehending the
submission.


10. It is quite obvious that, while remanding the matter to the
petitioners to pass a de novo order, the Hyderabad Bench of the
Tribunal would ordinarily not pass any interim order.

11. The order passed in de novo proceedings on 18 August 2025 is,
however, now subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in OA
988/2026.

12. There is obviously no bar to the Tribunal, in the said fresh
proceedings, passing an interim order directing payment of provisional
pension.

13. The interim order is purely discretionary in nature.

14. We are having, day in and day out, to deal with writ petitions
being filed against purely discretionary interim orders passed by the
Tribunal, which cause no prejudice whatsoever to the petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:12:54
W.P.(C) 15898/2026 Page 5 of 6

before us.

15. We are especially unhappy at the fact that such orders are being
challenged by the executive authorities, especially when compliance
with the order would be always subject to the outcome of the OA.

16. We, therefore, see no reason why the presently impugned order
has been challenged by the petitioners before us. Apparently, it is
only when the Tribunal has chosen to take cognizance of the contempt
proceedings initiated by the respondent, and the petitioners apprehend
the requirement of personal appearance before the Tribunal that the
present writ petition has been filed.

17. We called upon Mr. Pandey as to whether he was willing to
ensure compliance with the impugned order within a particular period
of time before the next date of hearing before the Tribunal. He
submits that he has no instructions to give any such undertaking.

18. We find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned
order of the Tribunal.

19. This writ petition, which is completely misconceived on facts as
well as in law is, accordingly, dismissed in limine .


C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 29, 2026 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:03.11.2026
17:12:54
W.P.(C) 15898/2026 Page 6 of 6