An interim stay suspends an order’s operation without extinguishing the order itself.

The petitioner challenged a Government order dated 11 June 2026 imposing the same penalties—four increments withheld with cumulative effect and recovery of ₹13,62,810—that had been imposed by an earlier order dated 23 September 2024.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal had set aside the earlier penalty order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, but the Tribunal’s order was later stayed by the High Court in a separate writ petition.

The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s refusal to stay the 11 June 2026 Government order and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether a stay of the Tribunal’s order setting aside the earlier penalty order wiped out that order or merely suspended its operation.

2. Whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for setting aside the Tribunal’s refusal to stay the Government order dated 11 June 2026.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may review the Tribunal’s order and grant appropriate interim relief.

Relying on *Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India*, (1992) 3 SCC 1, the Court applied the principle that quashing an order restores the position as it stood before that order, whereas staying an order merely suspends its operation from the date of the stay; a stay does not, by itself, wipe the order out of existence.

The Tribunal had set aside the 2024 penalty order, and the subsequent High Court stay of the Tribunal’s order suspended its operation but did not erase it.

Applying *Shree Chamundi Mopeds*, the Court held that the stay did not, by itself, eliminate the effect of the Tribunal’s order for purposes of the petitioner’s challenge to the later penalty order.

On that basis, the Court found a prima facie case and concluded that the Tribunal’s refusal to grant interim relief could not stand.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.