Full Text
Date of Decision: 27th July, 2026
DR SHABANA PRAVEEN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mahur, Mr. Harkesh Parashar, Ms. Yogita and
Mr. Suryanarayanan, Advocates Mob: 8307230126
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Ms. Jyoti Yadav, Ms. Shreyamishra, Ms. Garima Mehta, Mr. Aman Kumar Shukla and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates for UOI
Mob: 9910483635 SI Ombir, PS Malviya Nagar Mob: 8571036388
SALMA KHATOON .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mahur, Mr. Harkesh Parashar, Ms. Yogita and
Mr. Suryanarayanan, Advocates Mob: 8307230126
Through: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC with Mr. Anubhav Upadhyay, Ms. Garima Mehta and Mr. Aman Kumar Shukla, Advocates
Mob: 98184727744 SI Ombir, PS Malviya Nagar Mob: 8571036388
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions have been filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of two orders, both dated 27th May, 2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 9584/2018 and W.P.(C) 9554/2018.
2. Vide order dated 27th May, 2024, passed in W.P.(C) 9584/2018, it had been directed as follows:
3. Similarly, vide order dated 27th May, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 9554/2018, it had been directed as follows: “1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in O.A. No.335/2018. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner wherein she had sought quashing of the order dated 17.01.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 and had prayed that she be permitted to continue in service till the age of 65 years.
2. Both sides submit that the issue raised in the present petition stands decided against the petitioner by way of the decision dated 16.08.2023 in Civil Appeal no. 3339 of 2023 titled Central Counsel for Research in Ayurvedic Science and Anr vs. Bikartan Das & ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that irrespective of the dismissal of the present petition the petitioner is entitled to receive salary for the period between 12.09.2018 to 01.06.2020, during which period she had rendered service beyond the age of 60 years on account of the interim order passed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while issuing notice in the present petition, this Court had vide its interim order dated 12.09.2018, permitted the petitioner to continue to render service albeit without any salary. This interim order was assailed by the respondents before the Apex Court, which appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 01.06.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2476/2020. However, while vacating this Court’s interim order dated 12.09.2018, the Apex Court directed that the petitioner be paid salary for the period during which she had rendered service pursuant to the said interim order. Consequently, it was directed that in the event, the petitioner was found to have actually worked beyond the age of sixty years, she would be entitled to salary for the period she had rendered service pursuant to the order passed by this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to deny that in terms of the order dated 01.06.2020, the petitioner is required to be paid salary for the period she rendered service in terms of this Court’s interim order dated 12.09.2018. They, however, pray that the task of verifying the petitioner’s service record be left to the respondent.
5. In the light of the aforesaid stand taken by the parties, while we dismiss the writ petition along with all pending applications, in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court, we direct the respondent no.3 to release the salary of the petitioner for the period between 12.09.2018 to 01.06.2020, subject to verification of her service record, including the attendance register. Payment in terms of this order will be made to the petitioner within four weeks.”
4. Additional Compliance Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, in CONT.CAS(C) 1619/2024, it has been stated as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
5. The Additional Compliance Affidavit in CONT.CAS(C) 1620/2024 reads as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid amounts were required to be paid by the respondents to the petitioners, within a period of four weeks from the date of the subject order, i.e., 27th May, 2026, however, the same has not been done.
7. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that besides the salary, they have also released the Dearness Allowance (“DA”) as well as House Rent Allowance (“HRA”), to the petitioners.
8. However, it is to be noted that the aforesaid allowances are components of salary.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners claims interest on the basis of earlier order dated 09th October, 2024, passed by this Court in CONT.CAS(C) 1620/2024.
10. It is to be noted that though the orders of which compliance is sought are dated 27th May, 2024, however, the requisite amounts in terms of the said orders, have only been released to the petitioners in the month of July,
2026.
11. Accordingly, the respondents are held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum payable with effect from November, 2024, till the date of the release of the payment.
12. Let the interest component be released to the petitioners, within a period of 8 weeks, from today.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions are accordingly disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J JULY 27, 2026