AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Ati Naga Surya Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Basha, learned counsel representing Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Ms.Sk.Shahedaz, learned counsel appears for learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1and submits that she is formal party.
Considering the nature of dispute and the grievance raised in the writ petition as also that the OA is pending before the Tribunal, we are inclined to dispose of this writ petition at this stage dispensing with the issuance of notice to respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Initially, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana) by order dated 23.04.2026 rejected the prayer for interim relief. The order reads as under:
“Heard Mr.ANS Venkatesh, learned counsel for the applicant. Admit Interim Relief, as sought in the O.A., is rejected. Issue notice to the respondents. Four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file a reply in the matter. List the case, on 23.07.2026, before the Registrar’s Court, for completion of pleadings. A copy of today’s order to be sent to the respondents through email, to enable them to file reply, to support speedy adjudication and disposal.”
Challenging the said order dated 23.04.2026, W.P.No.12292 of 2026 was filed by the petitioner and the same was allowed with the observations and directions as contained in the judgment dated 19.06.2026. The operative part reads as under:
“11.The impugned order is unsustainable on such ground.
12.Only, on the aforesaid ground, we allow the writ petition and quash that part of the impugned order dated 23.04.2026 by which the interim relief has been rejected.
13.The Tribunal shall reconsider the prayer for interim relief in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides and expeditiously, if possible on the next date i.e., 23.07.2026 and if so not possible for some justifiable reasons, the interim prayer shall be considered and decided within next one week from the date fixed positively.”
Thereafter on 07.08.2026, the Tribunal passed the following order:
“Counsels for the parties are present, physically.
The applicant’s counsel prayed for interim relief.
Having heard, we are not inclined to grant interim relief at this stage.
List the case on 28.08.2026.”
Challenging the same the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that again, the Tribunal has passed the non-speaking order and does not consider the petitioner’s prayer for grant of interim relief in terms of the directions issued in W.P.No.12292 of 2026.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on being questioned submits that counter has yet not been filed in OA.
The direction in W.P.No.12292 of 2026 vide order dated 19.06.2026 was very clear to the Tribunal that “the Tribunal shall reconsider the prayer for interim relief in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides and expeditiously, if possible on the next date i.e., 23.07.2026 and if so not possible on that date, within one week positively.” Inspite of such direction, the Tribunal has not passed any reasoned order considering the interim relief matter and again for no reasons assigned, was not inclined to consider, grant of interim relief, which prima facie is not in consonance with the directions issued.
This petition is being disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner’s/applicant’s prayer for grant of interim relief, within 10 days from the date of production of the copy of this order in accordance with law. It is further made clear that even if the respondent No.2 does not file the counter affidavit which may be to delay the consideration of interim prayer, still the Tribunal shall consider the prayer and pass reasoned orders within the said period.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.