Writ courts should not ordinarily interfere with purely ad interim, interlocutory Tribunal orders.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 7 July 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 2383/2026, whereby, as an interim measure, the Tribunal directed them not to give effect to the impugned orders and permitted the respondent to continue performing duties as PGT (Physics) until the next date of hearing.

The Tribunal had granted the petitioners four weeks to file their reply to the original application, but no reply had been filed even after expiry of that period.

The matter was listed before the Tribunal on 17 August 2026, three days after the High Court’s decision.

The petitioners also apprehended that the Tribunal’s observations on the merits and jurisdiction might prejudice consideration of the respondent’s stay application and the original application.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with a purely ad interim and interlocutory order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that operated only until the next date of hearing.

2. Whether the observations made by the Tribunal in its ad interim order could prejudice the Tribunal’s final consideration of the stay application or the original application.

3. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to seek an expeditious decision on the respondent’s stay application upon filing their reply to the original application.

The High Court recognised that orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal are subject to the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Courts pursuant to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.

However, interference with a purely interlocutory, ad interim and discretionary order is unwarranted where the matter is shortly due for consideration before the Tribunal.

Observations made at the ad interim stage are not binding upon the court or tribunal when it subsequently decides the stay application finally or adjudicates the original proceedings on merits.

The Tribunal’s order merely suspended the operation of the petitioners’ impugned orders and allowed the respondent to continue in his post until the next hearing; it did not finally determine any rights.

Since the matter was listed before the Tribunal within three days, the High Court found no sufficient basis to exercise writ jurisdiction against the temporary discretionary relief.

The petitioners’ failure to file their reply within the four-week period had also deprived them of the opportunity to contest the interim relief effectively before the Tribunal.

Nevertheless, to address the apprehension of prejudice, the High Court clarified that the Tribunal must independently consider both the stay application and the original application without being influenced by the observations in its earlier order.

The High Court clarified that the Tribunal’s observations dated 7 July 2026 would not influence its final decision on the respondent’s stay application or the merits of the original application.

If the petitioners filed their reply within ten days from 14 August 2026, they were permitted to seek an expeditious decision on the respondent’s prayer for interim stay before the Tribunal.