Pending recall proceedings do not stay execution absent an operative stay order.

The applicant sought execution of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 8 February 2006 in O.A. No. 321 of 2004, by which the respondents’ order dated 2 September 2003 was quashed and the applicant was held entitled to reinstatement and regularisation on the same terms as Prahlad and others in O.A. No. 1550 of 1992, including notional pay fixation, increments, arrears, seniority and consequential promotional benefits.

The respondents challenged the original judgment before the High Court, but the writ petition was dismissed. Their recall/restoration application was stated to be pending. A contempt petition filed before the High Court was also dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to approach the Tribunal.

The respondents opposed execution on the grounds that the recall/restoration application was pending and raised other objections. The Tribunal had already condoned the delay in filing the execution application.

The respondents admitted that the directions in the original judgment had not been complied with, and no stay against that judgment was operating.

Whether execution of the Tribunal’s judgment could be kept in abeyance merely because the respondents’ recall/restoration application before the High Court was pending, in the absence of any operative stay?

Whether the respondents could re-agitate, in execution proceedings, objections or grounds that were available and had already been raised or considered in the original proceedings?

Whether the applicant’s alleged attainment of the age of superannuation after the 2006 judgment prevented implementation of the directions for reinstatement, regularisation and consequential retiral benefits?

The Tribunal applied the principle that a final judicial order must be complied with unless its operation has been stayed or set aside by a competent court.

It further applied the settled execution principle that executing proceedings cannot be used to reopen or re-adjudicate issues that were, or could have been, raised and decided in the original proceedings.

The Tribunal also held that a subsequent event, such as the beneficiary attaining the age of superannuation after the judgment, does not defeat implementation of accrued judicial relief; the order may be implemented through regularisation and grant of consequential retiral and monetary benefits.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had admittedly failed to implement the 2006 judgment and that no stay was in force. Therefore, the mere pendency of a recall/restoration application did not suspend the binding effect or executability of the judgment.

The objections raised by the respondents could not be entertained because they were already available when the original application was adjudicated and could not be re-agitated at the execution stage.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant’s possible superannuation after the judgment did not make compliance impossible. The respondents could implement the judgment by regularising the applicant’s service notionally and extending the consequential retiral benefits and arrears due under the original order.

It directed the respondents to comply with the judgment in O.A. No. 321 of 2004 and file a proper compliance affidavit by 5 November 2026.

In default, the applicant was granted liberty to seek appropriate further steps in accordance with law, including attachment of the bank accounts of the competent authority and/or its office.

No order as to costs was made.