Mere Notice on Stay Application Does Not Legally Interdict Respondents From Passing Relieving Orders

The petitioner, a patient suffering from dry psoriasis, was previously transferred to Delhi on humanitarian grounds. He challenged a subsequent transfer order moving him back to Kerala before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") in OA 2105/2026

While the Tribunal issued notice on the stay application on May 27, 2026, it did not grant an interim stay. Consequently, the respondents issued a relieving order on June 22, 2026

The petitioner filed MA 3031/2026 seeking a stay of the relieving order, which the Tribunal dismissed on June 29, 2026, noting that since the petitioner was already relieved, a stay was no longer feasible

The petitioner subsequently moved the Delhi High Court via this writ petition

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by refusing to stay the relieving order on the grounds that the petitioner had already been relieved

2. Whether the respondents’ action of relieving the petitioner while an interim prayer was pending adjudication constitutes a legal or procedural irregularity

The Court applied the settled legal principle that a mere issuance of notice on a stay application does not operate as an automatic stay of the impugned order

The court recognized the discretionary power of the Tribunal to adjudicate transfer matters based on existing transfer policies and humanitarian considerations, such as medical conditions

once an act is completed (the "fait accompli" in the relieving order), a stay of that specific action may be legally moot, though subordinate to final adjudication on merits

The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's legal assessment that because no formal stay was in place as of June 22, 2026, there was no legal bar preventing the respondents from relieving the petitioner

While the Court joined the Tribunal in deprecating the respondents' "tearing manner" of relieving the petitioner while the matter was sub-judice, it found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's refusal to grant a stay after the fact had occurred

However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's medical hardship (dry psoriasis) and the alleged violation of the transfer policy. Consequently, the Court determined that rather than reversing the interlocutory order, the appropriate remedy was to expedite the final disposal of the original application to prevent further hardship

The Court directed the Tribunal to list the OA for final hearing on July 27, 2026, requesting a disposal on merits as early as possible without being influenced by previous observations. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, maintaining the status quo of the relieving order pending final disposal by the Tribunal