'Such Petitions Burden Our Docket': Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against CAT Adjournment Order

The Delhi High Court recently declined to entertain a writ petition filed by the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that merely adjourned a service dispute while continuing interim protection, observing that such petitions unnecessarily burden the Court's docket.

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla remarked:

"We fail to understand why, when the Tribunal has specifically listed the matter on 30 June 2026, with a further direction that the matter would not be adjourned on the said date and that the interim relief would only be continued till then, the petitioner has approached this Court."

The Court further observed: "Such petitions, we are constrained to say, burden the docket of this Court and make it difficult for us to complete the Board."

The writ petition arose out of a service dispute pending before the CAT, where an employee, Raj Kumar Tripathi, challenged his transfer from NIELIT, Delhi to NIELIT, Aurangabad by an order dated March 24, 2026.

Before the Tribunal, the employee alleged that the transfer was actuated by mala fides.

He also alleged that although the transfer order required officers to be relieved by April 6, 2026, the authorities relieved him even earlier.

On April 2, 2026, the CAT directed the parties to maintain status quo while considering his prayer for interim relief.

Subsequently, the High Court had, in earlier proceedings, requested the Tribunal to take up the original application for final hearing on May 18, 2026, while directing both sides not to seek adjournments.

However, the Tribunal ultimately adjourned the matter to June 30, 2026, while continuing the interim relief, prompting NIELIT to file the present writ petition.

The Bench noted that it was unclear why the Tribunal Bench hearing the matter on May 18 transferred it to another Bench, clarifying that the High Court had never directed that the case be heard by any particular Bench.

"We make it clear that the matter should be heard by the Bench to which it is assigned, as per roster or as assigned by the Hon'ble Chairperson of the Tribunal," the Court said.

The Court also expressed disapproval over the fact that an adjournment appeared to have been sought despite its earlier direction that neither side should seek one.

"We, however, make it clear that it was improper for any adjournment to have been sought on 20 May 2026 in view of the specific direction by us to the contrary," the Bench observed.

Declining to interfere with the CAT's order, the High Court noted that the original application was already fixed for final hearing on June 30, 2026, with interim protection operating only till that date.

The Court requested the Tribunal to hear the matter finally on June 30, 2026, and reiterated that no adjournment on any ground whatsoever should be sought by either party, and further directed that no request for pass-over would be entertained.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Appearance: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Mr. Tushar Tokas, Advs. for Petitioners; Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Yogesh Kr Mahur, Mr. Harkesh Parashar, Ms. Shivani Singh, Ms. Illashree and Ms. Yogita, Advs. Mr. Mahendra Vikram Singh, SPC with Mr. Sanjay Misra, Advs. for R-2.

Case title: National Institute Of Electronics And Information Technology (NIELIT) & Ors. v. Sh. Raj Kumar Tripathi & Ors.

Case no.: W.P.(C) 7734/2026

Click here to read order