Writ interference with discretionary Tribunal interim orders is unwarranted absent irreparable prejudice.

The respondent challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) a disciplinary penalty withholding 30% of his monthly pension for eight years, along with the appellate order.

While the Original Application was pending, the CAT directed the Union not to withhold any part of the respondent’s Dearness Relief and to refund any amount already deducted, relying on the Pension Rules’ definition of “pension” as excluding Dearness Relief.

The Union challenged that interim order under Article 226.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the CAT’s interim direction concerning payment and refund of Dearness Relief.

Whether it was necessary to determine the correctness of the CAT’s interpretation of the Pension Rules at the interim stage.

The High Court referred to L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, in the context of judicial review of tribunal decisions under Articles 226 and 227.

It treated the challenged direction as a discretionary, interlocutory order and declined interference in the circumstances, observing that the interim relief would remain subject to the outcome of the Original Application and create no equities for either party.

The High Court considered that this interim direction did not cause irreparable or lasting prejudice warranting intervention.

Although the Union argued that the CAT had misunderstood the law, the High Court expressly declined to examine the merits, noting that the CAT’s observations were interlocutory and could not influence its final determination of the Original Application.

It directed compliance within four weeks, while clarifying that the interim relief remained subject to the outcome of the Original Application and created no equities in favour of either side.