Delhi HC Rejects Centre’s Challenge To CAT’s Provisional Pension Order, Filed Only After Contempt Action Began

In brief

The question

1. Whether the CAT had jurisdiction to direct payment of provisional pension as interim relief in the pending O.A.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that it was misconceived on the facts and in law.

It also directed

It declined to interfere with the CAT’s interim direction to release provisional pension or its subsequent order requiring a compliance affidavit.

01Facts

The respondent challenged a fresh order imposing permanent withholding of his pension and gratuity before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 988/2026.

p. 2 · ¶ 1–2

In an earlier proceeding, the Hyderabad Bench had set aside the original penalty and directed the petitioners to reconsider the matter; the petitioners subsequently reimposed the penalty by an order dated 18 August 2025.

p. 2 · ¶ 1–2

On 23 July 2026, the CAT directed the petitioners, as interim relief, to release provisional pension within four weeks.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

After the petitioners did not comply, the respondent initiated contempt proceedings. On 8 October 2026, the CAT directed the petitioners to file a compliance affidavit within seven days, failing which it would summon Respondent No. 2.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–5

The petitioners then sought to challenge both Tribunal orders by writ petition.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the CAT had jurisdiction to direct payment of provisional pension as interim relief in the pending O.A.

p. 4 · ¶ 7 · p. 5 · ¶ 11–12

ii.2. Whether the CAT’s interim pension direction and subsequent compliance order warranted interference by the High Court under writ jurisdiction.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 13–19

03Law Applied

The judgment identifies no particular statute or precedent as the basis for decision. It proceeds on the accepted principle that the CAT may grant interim relief in proceedings before it, including an order for provisional pension, and treats such interim relief as discretionary.

p. 5 · ¶ 7, 12–13

The Court also considered that compliance with the interim direction would remain subject to the final outcome of the O.A.

p. 6 · ¶ 15

No separate legal rule governing the CAT’s contempt jurisdiction is articulated in the order.

04Reasoning

The petitioners accepted that the CAT had jurisdiction to order provisional pension.

p. 4 · ¶ 7

The High Court rejected the argument that the Hyderabad Bench’s failure to direct provisional pension when remitting the matter prevented the CAT from granting that relief in the later O.A.; the earlier remand and the subsequent challenge to the fresh penalty order were distinct procedural stages.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–12

The Court regarded the interim direction as discretionary and noted that the petitioners showed no resulting prejudice, since payment would be subject to the outcome of the O.A.

p. 5 · ¶ 13–15

It further considered that the writ petition had been filed only after the Tribunal took up the contempt proceedings and the petitioners faced the prospect of a personal appearance, while their counsel could provide no undertaking as to compliance.

p. 6 · ¶ 16–17

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere.

p. 6 · ¶ 18