The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, to expeditiously decide the pending challenge by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur to his compulsory retirement.
The court passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by Thakur under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking an expeditious hearing of his application filed before the CAT in 2021 challenging the order of his compulsory retirement issued in March 2021.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that there was no objection to an expeditious order being passed. The bench, comprising Justice Jaspreet Singh, noted that keeping the matter pending would serve no useful purpose and that the ends of justice would be better served by directing the tribunal to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
The High Court specifically directed the CAT to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties but emphasized that this should be done without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party, provided there was no legal impediment to proceeding.
The court made it clear that it had not examined the merits of the case and that the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. The bench remarked, 'It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.'
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the Central Administrative Tribunal to consider and finally decide the pending Original Application as expeditiously as possible.
The case is titled Amitabh Thakur Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And 2 Others.
The direction was passed on 8 September 2026.
The High Court clarified that its order was limited to securing an expeditious disposal and did not constitute any comment on the substantive validity of either party's position.
The Tribunal is now required to proceed with the hearing and render a decision without undue delay, while affording both sides a fair opportunity to be heard.
The court’s intervention seeks to prevent further delay in a matter that has remained unresolved for over five years, ensuring that the administrative remedy available to the petitioner is not rendered infructuous by lapse of time.
The order underscores the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to ensure that subordinate tribunals do not allow proceedings to linger without justification.
The bench emphasized that while it would not interfere with the Tribunal’s independent adjudication, it could intervene to prevent injustice arising from unreasonable delay.
The direction does not preclude the Tribunal from applying its own procedural rules, provided they do not result in unnecessary postponement.
The parties are expected to appear before the Tribunal for hearing in accordance with the directive, and the Tribunal must now schedule proceedings accordingly.
The High Court’s order is final in so far as it relates to the request for expedition, and no further recourse lies to it on that specific issue unless the Tribunal fails to comply.
The matter will now return to the Central Administrative Tribunal for a decision on the merits, in line with the law and the facts presented by the parties.