Absence of a stay requires implementation of tribunal directions, subject to refund undertaking pending appeal.

The applicant, Virendera Singh, a Master Craftsman posted at Ordinance Factory, Dehradun, filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He challenged orders dated 1 December 2010, 13 December 2010 and 20 June 2011, to the extent that they treated the grade pay of ₹2,800 as a promotion for the purposes of ACP/MACP benefits. He sought grant of the second financial upgradation in the pay scale of ₹5,000–8,000, revised to Pay Band-2 of ₹9,300–34,800 with grade pay of ₹4,200, upon completion of 20 years of service, along with consequential benefits.

The respondents informed the Tribunal that its earlier order in the same matter had been upheld by the High Court and challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 36457–36460/2025, but that no stay had been granted against the Tribunal’s order. The applicant further stated that the order had already been implemented in connected execution proceedings, subject to the outcome of the pending SLP.

1. Whether the respondents could be directed to comply with the Tribunal’s earlier directions concerning the applicant’s ACP/MACP financial upgradation when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court but no stay was operating.

2. Whether such compliance should be made conditional upon the applicant furnishing an undertaking to refund the benefits received if the respondents ultimately succeeded before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the procedural principle that an order of a court or tribunal remains operative and is required to be complied with unless its operation has been stayed or otherwise suspended by a superior court.

The Tribunal further applied the equitable principle that implementation of the order during the pendency of a challenge may be safeguarded by obtaining an undertaking for restitution or refund if the order is ultimately reversed.

The Tribunal noted that the earlier Tribunal order had been upheld by the High Court and that the pending Supreme Court SLP did not carry any stay.

Consequently, the pendency of the SLP did not create an impediment to implementation of the operative directions.

At the same time, to protect the respondents against the possibility of the Supreme Court allowing the SLP, the Tribunal required the applicant to furnish an undertaking to refund any amount received pursuant to implementation.

This balanced enforcement of the subsisting order with restitutionary protection pending final adjudication by the Supreme Court.

Compliance was made conditional upon the applicant furnishing an undertaking that he would refund the amount received if the respondents succeeded before the Supreme Court.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.