CAT Dismisses ICFRE Employee’s Bid To Quash Review Upholding Premature Retirement, Leaving Main Challenge Pending And Imposing ₹5,000 Costs.

The applicant challenged her premature retirement, ordered on 17 September 2024, and submitted a representation on 22 September 2024.

She filed OA No. 566/2024 on 6 November 2024, before the representation had been decided; the Tribunal issued notice, but had not admitted the OA.

On 31 January 2025, the respondents communicated that the Representation/Review Committee had upheld the retirement decision.

The applicant then filed this MA seeking to have that decision declared a nullity, principally relying on Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the 42-day timeline in the DoPT OM dated 28 August 2020.

The respondents opposed the MA as an improper vehicle for final relief and argued that the OA had not been admitted.

Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides for abatement of relevant pending proceedings and bars further representations on the same subject only once an application has been admitted by the Tribunal; issuance of notice is distinct from admission.

Section 20 ordinarily requires an applicant to avail the available service-rule remedies before the Tribunal admits an application, and Section 20(2)(a) treats the rejection of an appeal or representation as a final order.

The DoPT OM dated 28 August 2020 sets out successive periods for processing a premature-retirement representation, but the Tribunal held that these did not establish an absolute 42-day limit for completion of the entire process.

Rule 8(3) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 concerns applications for interim orders or directions and does not permit an MA to be used to seek final relief that should be pursued in the OA.

The Tribunal also relied on Union of India v. Deepak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222, in support of the proposition that, absent a restraining order, the authority is not precluded from acting during the pendency of proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the representation remained pending when the applicant filed the OA and that the OA had not been admitted.

Accordingly, Section 19(4) was not triggered merely because notice had issued, and no interim order prevented the respondents from deciding the representation.

It also rejected the applicant’s 42-day argument, explaining that the OM contemplated sequential steps involving the cadre authority, the Representation Committee, and the appointing authority, and did not make completion of the whole process within 42 days mandatory.

Finally, because the MA sought substantive, final relief rather than an interim direction, Rule 8(3) was not an appropriate procedural basis for the claim.

It dismissed the MA with costs of ₹5,000 payable to the respondents and listed the OA for 19 November 2026.