Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10890

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Judicial Member, Sumeet Jerath, Administrative Member
Santosh Kumar General Secetary Vehicle Depot Employees Union Co Cvd Delhi Cantt – Appellant
Versus
Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh Ias Secretary Defence – Respondent
CP No. 682/2025|OA No. 3601 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manoj Kr. Chaudhary
For the Respondents: Y P Singh

The intention to challenge a judicial order before a superior court does not automatically stay the operation of that order; compliance must be ensured unless a formal stay is granted by the competent court.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Non-compliance of Tribunal Order - Mere intention to file an appeal or the pendency of a challenge before a superior court does not operate as an automatic stay of the operation of the order. (Para 8)

(B) Execution of Order - Conditional Compliance - Compliance of a Tribunal order directed by the High Court must be implemented within the stipulated timeframe, subject to the final outcome of the pending litigation. (Para 10, 11)

Issues: Whether the intention to approach the Supreme Court stays the operation of the Tribunal's order and the High Court's direction for compliance.

Table of Content
1. background of non-compliance and high court directions for implementation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. an appeal or intention to appeal does not automatically stay the operation of a lower court's order. (Para 7 , 8)
3. direction for conditional compliance and disposal of the contempt petition. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

[[IMG_1]] [[IMG_2]] [[IMG_3]]

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

1. The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3601/2022, whereby the Original Application preferred by the Applicants was allowed and the Respondents were directed to extend the benefit of Dress Allowance to the Applicants in terms of the applicable rules and the law laid down in the judgments referred to in the said order.

2. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that despite the expiry of the period of three months granted by this Tribunal for compliance, the Respondents failed to implement the order. It is submitted that the Applicants had also made representations dated 31.05.2025 and 10.07.2025 and that the order of this Tribunal was duly acknowledged by the concerned authorities. However, no effective compliance was made, compelling the Applicants to initiate the present contempt proceedings.

3. It is not in dispute that the order dated 08.04.2025 was assailed by the Respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 5039/2026. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 16.04.2026, while considering the challenge to the order of this Tribunal, observed, inter alia, that it did not prima facie find any real basis to distinguish the case of the Applicants from the decision of the Chandigarh Bench in Gurmit Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., and further observed that the said decision had been upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Hon’ble High Court was also not inclined to grant stay of the operation of the order of this Tribunal.

4. Significantly, the Hon’ble High Court, in paragraph 16 of its order dated 16.04.2026, directed the petitioners therein to comply with the order of this Tribunal within a period of twelve weeks from that date, while making such compliance subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The Hon’ble High Court further clarified that such compliance would be confined to the Applicants who were before the Tribunal.

5. Thus, the period of twelve weeks stipulated by the Hon’ble High Court expired on or about 09.07.2026. Despite the said direction, the order of this Tribunal has admittedly not been complied with. This Tribunal had, therefore, on 28.07.2026, directed the Commanding Officer, Vehicle Depot, to remain present and explain the continued non-compliance.

6. On 10.08.2026, the alleged contemnor, Lt. Colonel, Commanding Officer, has appeared before the Tribunal and submitted that the Respondents are in the process of challenging the order of the Hon’ble High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is evident from the order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court that there is no order staying the operation of the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal. On the contrary, the Hon’ble High Court specifically directed the Respondents to comply with the order of this Tribunal within twelve weeks. The mere fact that the Respondents propose to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court, or may have taken steps for filing an appeal/SLP, cannot by itself operate as a stay of the order which is sought to be challenged.

9. At the same time, having regard to the fact that the Respondents have now expressed their intention to avail of their further remedy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and keeping in view the fact that the substantive order of this Tribunal is presently the subject matter of challenge before the superior forum, we deem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document