High Court Must Dispose of Stay Vacation Applications Before Compelling Compliance Under Threat of Contempt

The respondents, IPS officers of the Uttarakhand Cadre, were nominated by the State for central deputation and subsequently appointed as Deputy Inspectors General in the ITBP and BSF by the Union of India.

They challenged their deputation and relieving orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi.

On 07.04.2026, the CAT passed an ex parte interim order staying the operation of the appointment and relieving orders.

Despite the State filing counter-affidavits and applications for vacation of the stay, the CAT, on 22.05.2026, granted the respondents time to reply to the stay vacation applications while simultaneously directing the State to report compliance with the interim order within two days under threat of contempt proceedings.

The State challenged this direction before the Uttarakhand High Court.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which confers jurisdiction if the cause of action arises in part within the High Court's territory.

The Constitution Bench ruling in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India regarding the seat of the Tribunal.

The principle from State of J&K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. v. Sachidanand Dass, which mandates that applications for vacation of stay should be decided before or simultaneously with contempt proceedings to avoid causing serious prejudice.

Distinction of Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, noting it applied specifically to Section 25 (transfer powers) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court reasoned that since the respondents are Uttarakhand cadre officers and the "functional operation" of the interim order (re-posting them) would occur within Uttarakhand, a major part of the cause of action arose there.

The CAT New Delhi exercised jurisdiction only because its territory was extended to Uttarakhand via notification.

The State had already filed its counter-affidavit, putting its version on record.

By granting the respondents more time to reply to the stay vacation application while ordering the State to comply with the stay within 48 hours, the Tribunal effectively rendered the State's application infructuous.

The court found this approach "legally unsustainable" as it coerced compliance before adjudicating the validity of the stay itself.

The Tribunal must decide the stay vacation application before enforcing compliance.

The Court quashed the portion of the order dated 22.05.2026 that directed the petitioners to report compliance within two days under threat of contempt.

The contempt proceedings were ordered to remain stayed until the stay vacation applications are decided and the writ petitions were disposed of.