Union Of India & Anr. vs Vinod Kumar Goel

$~118
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010504052026
+ W.P.(C) 15477/2026, CM APPL. 72593/2026 & CM APPL.
72594/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sr.
Panel Counsel.

versus

VINOD KUMAR GOEL .....Respondent
Through: Dr. B.T. Kaul with Mr. U.D.
Bhargava, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
O R D E R
% 15.10.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the following order passed
1
by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 20 May 2026 which is
reproduced as under.

“Heard Dr. Kaul, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Charak,
learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Sinha, learned
counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. On 24.03.2026, we passed the following order:

“Mr. Charak, learned counsel for the respondent Union of

1
“Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:31
W.P.(C) 15477/2026 Page 1 of 5

India, at the outset, makes a statement that he has prepared
the reply and sent the same to the department for signatures.
He seeks three weeks' time to file the reply with an advance
copy to the other side. Statement accepted.

The applicant shall thereafter be at liberty to file rejoinder
within one week thereafter. Meanwhile, the respondent
UPSC is also at liberty to file reply.

Stand over to 20.05.2026.

It is made clear that the applicant's prayer for grant of
interim relief shall be considered on the next date of
hearing.”

3. Despite the above order, reply has not been filed either by
respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2. Therefore, we heard Dr.
Kaul, learned counsel for the applicant, on the point of interim
relief.

4. The applicant, by filing the present O.A., has mainly
challenged the penalty order dated 20.07.2023 as also the appellate
order dated 14.10.2024. Dr. Kaul presses for interim relief mainly
on the ground that the respondents should not withhold any part of
the Dearness Relief payable to the applicant in pursuance of the
penalty order.

5. By order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority, the applicant has been imposed with the penalty of
withholding of 30% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible
to him for a period of eight years.

6. Dr. Kaul, learned counsel for the applicant, invited our
attention to the definition of "pension" under Section 3(t) of the
Pension Rules, which reads as follows:

"3. Definitions.- (1) In these rules, unless the context
otherwise requires:-
...........................

(f) "Pension" includes gratuity except when the term
pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity, but does not
include dearness relief"

..........................."

7. Dr. Kaul further invited our attention to the following
averments made in para zz:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:31
W.P.(C) 15477/2026 Page 2 of 5

"(zz) It is submitted that the impugned Order dated
20.07.2023 is arbitrary, illegal, oppressive and contrary to
rule 14 of the said Rules and rule 8 of CCS (Pension)
Rules, 2021.
It would also be observed that the impugned Order does not
disclose whether the advice tendered by the Commission in
this matter vide their letter dated 22.08.2022 has been
accepted by the DA or not.
Furthermore, the impugned Order does not contain any
findings of the DA on the articles of charge against the
Applicant with reasons therefor, which is a grave violation
of rule 15(4) of the said Rules. The said rule 15(4) reads as
under:

“(4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its
findings on all or any of the articles of charge and
on the basis of the evidence adduced during the
inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties
specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 should be
imposed on the Government servant, it shall make
an order imposing such penalty ...”
(emphasis added)

The said impugned Order is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to rule 15(4) and liable to be quashed and set aside
by the Hon'ble Tribunal."

8. It is clear from the definition of "Pension" as given under
the Pension Rules that respondent No. 1, while implementing the
impugned penalty order, cannot withhold any part of the Dearness
Relief payable to the applicant.

9. We, therefore, grant interim relief and direct respondent
No. 1 not to withhold any part of the Dearness Relief payable to
the applicant while implementing the impugned penalty order, as
Dearness Relief does not fall within the definition of "pension"
under the Pension Rules.

10. We further direct respondent No. 1 to refund the amount
already deducted from the Dearness Relief payable to the
applicant.

11. Stand over to 19.08.2026 for further hearing.

12. Meanwhile, the respondents are at liberty to file counter
affidavit.”

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:31
W.P.(C) 15477/2026 Page 3 of 5

2. We are certain that, while rendering its historic decision in the
2
case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India , the learned Seven
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court would never have imagined that
purely discretionary interim orders passed by the Tribunal would also
be made subject matter of challenge under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, especially where the order does not result in any
irreparable or lasting prejudice to anyone.

3. By the impugned interim order, the Tribunal has only restrained
the petitioners from withholding the dearness relief payable to the
respondent while computing pension due to him and has directed
refund of the amount, if already deducted.

4. We see no reason to interfere with this direction.

5. It goes without saying that the interim order can create no
equities in favour of either side and that it would remain subject to the
outcome of the writ petition.

6. Mr. Pandey submits that the interim order is based on an
erroneous understanding of the law.

7. We do not deem it necessary to enter into the merits of the
impugned interim order as observations contained in the interim order
are purely interlocutory in nature and, in any case, cannot influence
the Tribunal when the OA is finally decided.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:31
W.P.(C) 15477/2026 Page 4 of 5

8. We, therefore, do not find this to be a case of meriting
interference.

9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine .

10. We direct compliance with the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal within a period of four weeks but clarify that it shall remain
subject to the outcome of the OA pending before the Tribunal and
shall create no equities in favour of either side.


C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 15, 2026 / yk


2
(1997) 3 SCC 261
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:YOGESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:31
W.P.(C) 15477/2026 Page 5 of 5