A tribunal cannot vacate an interim order in contempt jurisdiction that was granted in an original application without proper procedure.

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 stay order and continued to recover the amount, which amounted to disobedience of the Tribunal’s order dated 12.11.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 10/2025, alleging non-compliance of Vide the interim order. the impugned order, the learned Tribunal closed the contempt petition and also vacated the interim stay. Aggrieved by the same, the present Original Petition has been filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Tribunal could not have vacated the stay in contempt jurisdiction since the stay order was granted in the Original Application. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Das – Joint Secretary v. Shrimati Huthee Singh Tagore Charitable Trust , SLP (C) No.34892/2014, wherein the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for proceedings on the contempt petition. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal could suo motu not have vacated the interim order in a contempt petition.

Per contra

4. , the learned Central Government Counsel initially opposed the petitioners’ prayer; however, he submitted that the learned Tribunal could have vacated the stay in the Original Application rather than in the Contempt Petition. He further submitted that, in contempt jurisdiction, the only question to be examined is whether the order has been complied with and whether there is any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. The Tribunal could not have vacated or reviewed the interim suo motu order dated 12.11.2024, passed in O.A. No. 593/2024, on the ground that interim orders granted in other Original Applications had already been vacated. The respondents did not file any application to vacate the interim order, nor did they oppose the extension of the same. The Tribunal further held that its judicial constraints did not permit the implementation of the interim order, as the peculiar situation was allegedly created by the respondents due to their deplorable lethargy in getting the order vacated, which was purportedly misused by the applicant. We are of the view that such a stance cannot be taken in a contempt petition, particularly considering that the interim order was granted in the Original Application and not in the contempt petition. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed.

The Original Petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to rehear the contempt petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Sd/-