Shri Kousik Chakraborty v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This writ petition assails the following order dated 26 May 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in MA 2549/2026 in OA 1630/2026: “MA/2549/2026 - Application on behalf of 19 applicants to stay the operation and effect of execution and implementation of office order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure A-3), whereby the Review Screening Committee, consequent to rectification of batch year of the applicants from 2005 to 2006 has revised Non- Functional Upgradation (NFU) to SAG in Pay Level-14 w.e.f. year 2023 to year 2024.

2. The date of NFU granted earlier stands modified and applicants have apprehension that respondents are likely to re-fix “the Tribunal” hereinafter their pay and effect recoveries and the respondents are intending to carry out re-fixation of pay.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that prima facie applicants were held not entitled in the cadre before the date of UPSC letter dated 13.03.2006 containing applicants' recommendations. The date of recommendation by UPSC dated 13.03.2006 is the date of completion of direct recruitment and the applicants have been correctly assigned batch of 2006.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant presses for consideration of interim relief.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that applicants are seeking restoration of batch year 2006, whereas the seniority pursuant to UPSC recommendation dated l[3].03.2006 and the prima facie case is not made out as. well as the balance of convenience does not lies in favour of the applicants and no irreparable loss is likely to be caused and applicants can be compensated in terms of money.

6. Heard with consent. We have considered the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the parties and the fact of the matter that the matter relates to re-fixation of pay on grant of NFU and no irreparable loss is likely to be caused and same can be compensated. However, three ingredients for grant of interlocutory injunction is not made out.

7. Accordingly, MA/2549/2026 stands dismissed.”

2. The impugned order is plainly interlocutory in nature and has been passed in exercise of the discretion vested in the Tribunal. Save and except for the aspect of recovery, no irreparable injury is caused to the petitioner as a result of the impugned order.

3. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, except to clarify that, pending disposal of the OA, there would be no recoveries effected from the petitioner.

4. This order is, however, subject to the outcome of the OA pending before the Tribunal.

5. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 28, 2026