Jagat Prasad vs POSTAL on 10 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA Order Sheet Item no.: 34 C.P./101/2025 (PATNA) [ CONTEMPT ] In O.A./104/2021 TERMINATION Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 6 Order Dated: 10/11/2026 JAGAT PRASAD Vs POSTAL

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. M. P. Dixit For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. T. N. Thakur, Sr. CGSC Order of The Tribunal Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken strong objection to the fact that the order of the Tribunal has not yet been complied with in its true letter and spirit. The petitioner is in receipt of the order issued by the respondent officials dated 21.07.2026, wherein it has been mentioned that as per the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 104/2021 dated 08.04.2025, the petitioner is to be paid pay and allowances regulated upon reinstatement in service. In compliance with these orders, the applicant has been reinstated in service from 27.03.2020 to 28.02.2025 (the date of superannuation), and the intervening period from the date of dispensation of service till reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes. Therefore, the payment of a total amount of Rs. 31,19,211/- has also been ordered for the period from 27.03.2020 to 28.02.2025 (the date of superannuation). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this order has been made only on paper and, as per his information, this order has been kept on hold. Learned Counsel for the respondents has filed a show cause reply, which does not indicate that the order has been complied with. On the contrary, it stops at the stage where the department has submitted a proposal for implementation of the order, stating that the same is under active consideration. Learned Counsel for the respondents is being directed to file a full compliance affidavit and also to clarify that, on the one hand, the petitioner is being given a copy indicating that the order of the Tribunal has been complied with, but, as per Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the ground reality is that the order has been put on hold. Learned Counsel for the respondents is directed to clarify the same and file it in the form of a supplementary show cause reply so as to dispel and allay the fear of Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal has been complied with only on paper, but behind his back, the implementation of the order has been stayed. List this case for further consideration on 21.12.2026.

KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA Member (A) Justice Narendra Kumar Johari Member (J) Sonali Lal ( court master )