Consequential benefits must be released upon reinstatement notwithstanding liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant, a Junior Engineer, sought the implementation of a previous order passed by a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on 04.09.2023 (in OA 816/2019).

That order set aside the disciplinary and appellate orders dated 28.08.2017 and 08.06.2018, respectively, and directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits within eight weeks

While the respondents reinstated the applicant on 18.11.2024 and treated the intervening period (28.08.2017 to 17.11.2024) as "on duty," they failed to disburse the consequential benefits for that duration

The respondents argued that since they were granted liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings—which were currently underway and nearing conclusion—the payment of benefits should depend on the outcome of those proceedings

1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to withhold consequential benefits mandated by a prior judicial order pending the outcome of fresh disciplinary proceedings

The Tribunal applied the principle of absolute compliance with judicial directions, emphasizing that orders of the Tribunal must be implemented "both in letter and in spirit"

It relied on the doctrine that once a disciplinary order is set aside with a specific direction for consequential benefits, those benefits become a vested right under the court's decree, which cannot be unilaterally stayed by the employer due to the initiation of fresh proceedings unless such a stay is explicitly granted by a competent court

The court examined the conflict between the respondents' discretionary power to conduct fresh inquiries and their mandatory duty to comply with the order dated 04.09.2023.

The respondents contended that disbursing benefits for the 2017–2024 period would be premature while a new inquiry was pending

The Tribunal rejected this reasoning, noting that the previous order had explicitly directed the implementation of benefits within a fixed timeframe of eight weeks

The Tribunal reasoned that the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings was an independent provision and did not act as a stay or a suspensive condition on the primary direction to provide consequential benefits

Consequently, the administrative delay in payment was found to be in violation of the judicial mandate

The Tribunal held that the pendency of fresh disciplinary proceedings does not justify the non-implementation of a prior judicial direction to pay consequential benefits

Both the M.A. and O.A. were disposed of accordingly