Writ jurisdiction should not interfere with pending contempt proceedings absent conclusive findings.

The respondent had succeeded in OA No. 4108/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the Government authorities to reconsider his entitlement to the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 15 September 2001, grant consequential pay fixation, and restrict arrears to three years preceding the filing of the OA.

Alleging non-compliance, the respondent initiated Contempt Petition No. 625/2025 before the Tribunal.

In the contempt proceedings, the Tribunal observed on 15 July 2026 that the Government’s status report did not constitute complete compliance and granted a further four weeks to file a proper compliance affidavit, warning that the concerned officers could be required to appear personally.

On 18 August 2026, two Government officers appeared and assured the Tribunal that the underlying order would be complied with within four weeks; the Tribunal directed them to remain personally present on the next date in case of non-compliance.

The Government challenged both interlocutory orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against the Tribunal’s interlocutory orders in the pending contempt proceedings.

Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal’s directions granting further time for compliance and recording the officers’ assurance of compliance.

Whether the High Court should express any view on the merits of the pending contempt petition.

The High Court applied the supervisory and certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, under which interference with an interlocutory order of a subordinate tribunal is warranted only where the order discloses a jurisdictional error, legal infirmity, or other ground justifying judicial review.

It further proceeded on the principle that an order granting an alleged contemnor an opportunity to comply with the original directions, particularly where the alleged contemnor’s representatives have assured compliance, ordinarily does not warrant writ interference.

The merits of the underlying contempt proceedings remain for determination by the Tribunal in accordance with law.

The Tribunal had not finally adjudicated the contempt petition; it had merely found prima facie incomplete compliance, granted the Government additional time, and directed the concerned officers’ personal appearance only in the event of continued non-compliance.

On 18 August 2026, the officers appeared in the presence of counsel and expressly assured compliance within four weeks.

The High Court therefore found no jurisdictional or legal basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction against these procedural directions.

The submission that the officers’ assurance may have resulted from personal summons did not justify interference, since the Government was represented by two counsel and the officers’ assurance was recorded in the Tribunal’s order.

It clarified that the dismissal did not constitute any opinion on the merits of the pending contempt petition, which the Tribunal remained free to decide in accordance with law.