Court Admonishes Adjournment Seeking Against Specific Directions and Orders Final Disposal of Original Application

The Petitioners challenged an order dated May 20, 2026, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 1225/2026

In a previous proceeding on May 8, 2026, the Delhi High Court had directed the Tribunal to hear the OA finally on May 18, 2026, explicitly forbidding adjournments

Despite this, the Tribunal's Bench transferred the matter to another Bench on May 18

On May 20, 2026, the Tribunal adjourned the matter again to June 30, 2026, extending the interim relief until then

The Petitioners approached the High Court aggrieved by the continued adjournments and the extension of interim relief.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s act of adjourning the matter and extending interim relief, despite previous High Court directions for an expedited final hearing, warranted interference through writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the High Court had mandated that a specific Bench of the Tribunal hear the matter.

The Court applied principles of judicial discipline and the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 (invoked via Article 226) regarding the conduct of subordinate tribunals.

It emphasized that specific directions from a superior court to a lower forum for timely disposal must be strictly adhered to, and adjournments in the face of such "interdictions" are improper

The Court also relied on the administrative principle that matters should be heard by the Bench as per the established roster or as assigned by the Chairperson of the Tribunal, rather than being restricted to specific individual judges unless expressly ordered

The Court expressed frustration that the Petitioner approached the High Court despite the Tribunal having already fixed a firm date for final hearing (June 30, 2026) with a "no further adjournment" clause

the Court scrutinized the procedural history, noting that the Tribunal failed to comply with the High Court's May 8 direction to decide the matter on May 18

The Court clarified a misunderstanding by the Tribunal, stating it never intended for a "particular Bench" to hear the case, but rather the appropriate roster Bench

The Court characterized the seeking or granting of an adjournment on May 20 as "improper" given the prior judicial mandate for speed

Nevertheless, because the Tribunal had now set a final date and limited the interim relief to that date, the Court found no reason to set aside the order, opting instead to reinforce its previous mandate

The Court held that the OA must be heard finally on June 30, 2026, by the roster Bench

It strictly interdicted both parties from seeking any adjournments or "pass-overs" on any ground whatsoever on the scheduled date. The interim relief was allowed to continue only until the said hearing date as per the Tribunal's own order