Facts
Sixty-six retired individuals (Petitioners) initiated contempt proceedings against officials of the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE/ICAR) and the Ministry of Finance for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 30.05.2024
Source reference: p. 7The original order in OA No. 1042/2022 directed the Respondents to re-fix the Petitioners’ pay as per the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations
Source reference: p. 8The Respondents challenged this order before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 2107/2026
Source reference: p. 8On 13.02.2026, the High Court issued an interim order staying the contempt proceedings before the Tribunal, contingent upon the Respondents depositing ₹20,00,000 with the Registrar General of the High Court
Source reference: p. 8Issues
1. Whether the Contempt Petition can proceed in light of the interim stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
Source reference: p. 8Law Applied
The Tribunal adhered to the principle of judicial subordination and the binding nature of interim stay orders issued by a superior court (High Court) exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
Source reference: p. 8It specifically relied on the conditional stay order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Delhi High Court, which mandates the suspension of lower proceedings upon the fulfillment of specified financial conditions
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court had taken cognizance of the underlying pay-fixation dispute and had explicitly stayed the contempt proceedings pending before the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 8The Respondents’ counsel demonstrated that the condition precedent for the stay—the deposit of ₹20,00,000—had been fulfilled via a Demand Draft deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court
Source reference: p. 8The Tribunal reasoned that since the High Court had seized the matter and provided a specific mechanism for the protection of the parties' interests (the deposit), the contempt proceedings could not continue simultaneously
Source reference: p. 8Consequently, the Tribunal found that the appropriate remedy for the Petitioners was to move an application for relief or orders within the pending Writ Petition before the High Court
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The Tribunal ordered the closure of the Contempt Petition and discharged the notices issued to the Respondents/Contemnors
The Petitioners were granted liberty to revive the Contempt Petition in accordance with the law, subject to the final outcome or further directions of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2107/2026
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
DR S BALA RAVIvsMANGI LAL JAT, SECRETARY, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in