Execution proceedings cannot enlarge the original order by awarding ungranted interest.

The applicant filed an execution application under Section 27 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking enforcement of the Tribunal’s order dated 2 April 2024 in OA No. 1276 of 2017.

The original order had quashed the orders relating to the applicant’s suspension and directed payment of full salary and allowances, after deducting subsistence allowance, for the suspension period, together with other allowances and consequential benefits.

In Writ-A No. 14052 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court partly modified that direction by substituting 6 October 2016 for 8 July 2016 as the commencement date of the relief.

The respondents filed a compliance affidavit stating that payments towards salary, allowances, bonus and other dues had been made to the applicant.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the principal amounts but contended that interest on the delayed payments had not been paid.

The Tribunal examined the payment documents annexed to the compliance affidavit.

1. Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 2 April 2024, as modified by the Allahabad High Court on 10 September 2024, by paying the salary, allowances and consequential benefits due to the applicant.

2. Whether the execution proceedings could continue on the applicant’s claim for interest on the delayed payment of arrears, when the operative directions did not expressly award interest.

Section 27 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 empowers the Tribunal to execute its orders.

The scope of execution is confined to enforcing the operative directions contained in the judgment or order.

The Tribunal applied the principle that where the directed monetary and consequential benefits have been paid in accordance with the order, the execution application is liable to be dismissed.

The High Court’s modification—that relief would operate from 6 October 2016 instead of 8 July 2016—governed the extent of the respondents’ liability.

Although the applicant relied on the proposition that consequential benefits may include interest, referring to Sudhir Chopra v. Union of India, the Tribunal did not accept that submission as creating an additional executable direction in the present case.

The Tribunal compared the operative directions in the original order, as modified by the High Court, with the payments disclosed by the respondents.

The respondents had paid the arrears of pay and allowances, pension arrears, gratuity and bonus claimed to have accrued under the orders.

On examining the supporting documents, the Tribunal found that the operative order had been complied with.

The applicant’s remaining grievance concerned interest on delayed payment.

However, the Tribunal treated the execution proceedings as limited to enforcement of the relief expressly granted and found no outstanding amount required to be recovered under the operative order.

Consequently, the claim for interest did not prevent the Tribunal from recording compliance.

The execution application was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

All associated miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.