Ravi Kumar’s CAT Relief Stands As Delhi HC Dismisses Centre’s Challenge To Consent-Based Tribunal Order

The Union of India and others challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 25 March 2026 in OA 4926/2025.

The Tribunal recorded the respondents’ submission that the issue was identical to OA 2001/2022, whose decision had been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and granted the same reliefs.

The High Court treated the Tribunal’s order as having been passed on consent.

Relying on Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi v. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 835, and the principles in Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 566, the Court stated that a consent decree cannot be challenged by appeal or an independent suit; the remedy to avoid it is to approach the court that recorded the compromise and establish that no valid compromise existed.

The judgment also reproduced Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, under which a court records a lawful compromise, and referred to Section 96(3) CPC’s bar on appeals against consent decrees.

The Tribunal had granted the same relief as in OA 2001/2022 after the respondents’ counsel acknowledged that the present issue was identical and that the earlier decision had been upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court.

The High Court characterised the resulting order as one passed on consent and applied the principle that such an order cannot be made the subject of a challenge, relying on the Supreme Court’s discussion of remedies against consent decrees.

It found no cause to interfere.