CAT - ['Delhi']Administrative and Public LawEmployment and Labour Law

CAT Lets Seven Junior Works Managers Withdraw Ordnance-Factory Pension Rule Challenge, With Liberty To Raise Surviving Grievances

Parul Kumarv.DEFENCE

CAT Lets Seven Junior Works Managers Withdraw Ordnance-Factory Pension Rule Challenge, With Liberty To Raise Surviving Grievances. Parul Kumar vs DEFENCE. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants should be permitted to withdraw the O.A. with liberty to pursue any surviving grievances in accordance with law.

The court held

The Tribunal permitted withdrawal of the O.A. and dismissed it as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

It also directed

The associated M.A. was also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicants, Junior Works Managers working with AVNL and India Optel Limited on a deemed-deputation basis, filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

¶ 1

They challenged a notification dated 2 September 2026 inserting a proviso below Rule 37(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, as well as orders dated 15 June 2026 and 25 June 2026.

¶ 1

They sought consideration for redeployment under Rule 37(7).

¶ 1

At the hearing, their counsel sought permission to withdraw the application in light of recent developments, with liberty to pursue any surviving grievances in accordance with law.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants should be permitted to withdraw the O.A. with liberty to pursue any surviving grievances in accordance with law.

¶ 2

ii.2. What order should follow in respect of the associated M.A.

¶ 4

03Law Applied

The O.A. was instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the procedural basis for an application before the Tribunal.

¶ 1

The Tribunal made no determination on the substantive validity of the challenged notification or orders, or on the applicants’ claimed entitlement under Rule 37(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021; it disposed of the matter on the applicants’ request to withdraw.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The applicants’ counsel sought withdrawal, citing recent developments, and requested liberty to pursue any surviving grievances in accordance with law.

¶ 2

The Tribunal granted that permission and, accordingly, did not examine the merits of the challenges to the notification or the other impugned orders.

¶ 2–4

05Holding

The Tribunal permitted withdrawal of the O.A. and dismissed it as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

¶ 3

The associated M.A. was also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.

¶ 3–5
CAT - ['Delhi']

Original Court PDF

Parul KumarvsDEFENCE

CAT - ['Delhi'] · October 15, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment