Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
SUDHAKARAN – Appellant
Versus
SHRI. NEERAJ MITTAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court reviewed a contempt petition's closure by examining prior decisions on pension. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the tribunal's authority over interim orders in contempt petitions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court determined the tribunal exceeded authority in vacating interim orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 180/10/2025 in O.A. No.180/00593/2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the contempt petition has been closed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had filed an Original Application seeking a direction to the respondents to restore full pension by stopping the recovery of pension commutation on completion of 11 years instead of 15 years, thereby challenging Rule 10-
vide A of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. The Tribunal, its order dated 12.11.2024, granted interim stay against further recovery of the commuted portion of pension until the next date of hearing. The respondents, however, failed to comply with the interim s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
