Uttarakhand HC Quashes CAT's Two-Day Compliance Deadline Issued While Stay Vacation Application Remained Undecided
The Uttarakhand High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal could not compel compliance with an interim order while a stay vacation application filed by the State remained pending and undecided.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, on 26 May 2026 quashed the part of a Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 22 May 2026 that directed the State of Uttarakhand to report compliance with an interim stay within two days, failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated. The Bench held that once the State had filed its counter-affidavit and a stay vacation application was on record, the Tribunal had no justification to simultaneously adjourn that application and threaten contempt. The contempt petitions before the Tribunal were directed to remain adjourned until the stay vacation applications are decided.
Two IPS Officers Sent on Central Deputation, Then Relieved
Neeru Garg, an IPS officer of the 2005 batch of the Uttarakhand cadre, was nominated by the State of Uttarakhand for central deputation vide letter dated 16 February 2026. The Ministry of Home Affairs, with the approval of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, appointed her as Deputy Inspector General in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police vide appointment letter dated 5 March 2026. The State then relieved her vide order No. 376722 dated 6 March 2026.
Arun Mohan Joshi, an IPS officer of the 2006 batch of the same cadre, was similarly nominated by the State vide letter dated 16 February 2026. He was appointed as Deputy Inspector General in the Border Security Force vide appointment letter dated 5 March 2026 and relieved by the State vide order dated 6 March 2026.
Both officers initially challenged their respective appointment and relieving orders before the Uttarakhand High Court. Those writ petitions were withdrawn on 23 March 2026 with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. They then filed Original Applications — O.A. No. 1181 of 2026 and O.A. No. 1180 of 2026 respectively — before the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
The Tribunal's Interim Order and What Followed
On 7 April 2026, the Tribunal passed a common interim order in both Original Applications, staying the operation and implementation of the appointment orders dated 5 March 2026 and the relieving orders dated 6 March 2026. The Tribunal found a prima facie case in favour of the officers and held that the balance of convenience lay with them, as any loss of status and service position might not be adequately compensated later. It directed the State of Uttarakhand to file a detailed counter-affidavit within four weeks, addressing the applicability of Rule 6(2) and its proviso, the Tenure Policy, and pay protection rules.
The Union of India challenged the interim order before the Delhi High Court by filing two writ petitions. Those petitions were withdrawn on 6 May 2026, with liberty to apply for vacation of the interim order before the Tribunal itself.
When the matter came up before the Tribunal on 7 May 2026, the State's counter-affidavit was already on record. The Tribunal granted three weeks' time to the original applicants to file their rejoinder-affidavit and extended the interim order till further orders. The State and the Union of India, noting the extension, sought time to report compliance.
Thereafter, the State of Uttarakhand filed Misc. Application Nos. 2597/2026 and 2566/2026 seeking vacation of the interim order, and the Union of India filed Misc. Application Nos. 2681/2026 and 2682/2026 to the same effect. The original applicants also initiated contempt proceedings before the Tribunal, alleging non-compliance of the interim order by State officials.
On 22 May 2026, the Tribunal passed the order that became the subject of the present writ petitions. It granted two weeks' time to the original applicants to file their reply to the stay vacation applications. By the same order, on the contempt petitions, it directed the State officials to report compliance of the interim order within two days, failing which it would be constrained to draw proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt petitions were listed for 26 May 2026 at 3:00 P.M.
The Jurisdiction Question: Which High Court Can Review a Principal Bench CAT Order?
Before the Uttarakhand High Court, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, (2022) 3 SCC 133, they argued that orders of the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi could be subjected to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, as the Tribunal falls within that court's territorial jurisdiction.
The State countered that the major part of the cause of action had arisen within Uttarakhand. The officers are of the Uttarakhand cadre; their names were nominated by the State; and if the interim order were implemented, they would have to be posted within the State. The State also pointed out that the Principal Bench exercises jurisdiction over Uttarakhand matters only by virtue of a Notification dated 18 July 2023 issued under Section 18 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — before which, such matters were handled by the Circuit Bench of the Allahabad Bench of the CAT.
The Division Bench examined the relevant provisions. Section 18 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 empowers the appropriate Government to distribute business amongst Benches by notification. The Notification dated 18 July 2023 extended the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, New Delhi to the State of Uttarakhand. The Bench traced the constitutional position through Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335, which confirmed that after the 1963 amendment introducing Article 226(2), a High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction if the cause of action arises wholly or partly within its territorial limits.
On L. Chandra Kumar, the Bench observed that the Constitution Bench was addressing whether the power of judicial review of High Courts could be excluded by constitutional or statutory provisions — not the question of territorial jurisdiction between competing High Courts. The observation that Tribunal decisions would be subject to scrutiny before the Division Bench of the High Court “within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls” was made in that specific context and did not address the cause-of-action basis for jurisdiction.
On Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the Bench distinguished it on the ground that it arose from an order passed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — the Chairman's power to transfer cases from one Bench to another — which is more in the nature of an administrative power, exercised on considerations entirely independent of the cause of action that led to the original application. The Bench noted that the Supreme Court itself, in SLP No. 530 of 2022 arising from proceedings under Section 25, had referred the question of territorial jurisdiction to a Larger Bench, though without staying the earlier judgment.
Since the original applicants had themselves initially approached the Uttarakhand High Court — acknowledging that the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction — and had only moved to the Principal Bench, New Delhi because of the Notification dated 18 July 2023, the Division Bench overruled the jurisdictional objection.
The Merits: Stay Vacation Application Must Be Heard Before Compliance Is Compelled
On the merits, the Bench applied a consistent line of Supreme Court authority. In State of J&K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan, (1992) 4 SCC 167, the Supreme Court had held that where a stay vacation application remains undisposed of, a court ought not to compel a party to ensure compliance of its interim order. In Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. v. Sachidanand Dass, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465, the Supreme Court held that wherever an order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and a stay of its operation is pending, it is appropriate to take up the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the contempt complaint. The same position was reiterated in Vinay Kumar Pandey v. Committee of Management Shri Gandhi Inter College (Civil Appeal No. 4007-4008 of 2020, decided on 8 December 2020), where the Supreme Court held that unless the application seeking vacation of an ad-interim order is adequately addressed and rejected, no case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out.
Applying these precedents, the Division Bench found that by 22 May 2026, the State's counter-affidavit was already on record and stay vacation applications had been filed. The Tribunal, instead of deciding those applications, granted two weeks' time to the original applicants to reply to them — and simultaneously directed the State to report compliance within two days under threat of contempt. The Bench held that this course was legally unsustainable. Once the State's version was on record and a request for vacation of the interim order was pending, there was no justification for adjourning the stay vacation applications while simultaneously directing compliance, thereby rendering those applications infructuous.
The Bench also addressed the respondents' argument that the State had itself sought time before the Tribunal on 7 May 2026 to report compliance of the interim order, and therefore could not challenge the direction. The Bench rejected this, holding that seeking time to report compliance while the interim order was being extended did not debar the State from pursuing adjudication of its stay vacation applications before being compelled to comply.
Order
The Division Bench quashed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22 May 2026 to the extent it directed the State of Uttarakhand to report compliance of the interim order within two days, failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated. The contempt petitions before the Tribunal were directed to remain adjourned until the stay vacation applications filed by the State and the Union of India are considered and decided. Both writ petitions — WPSB No. 305 of 2026 and WPSB No. 306 of 2026 — were disposed of accordingly, along with any pending applications.