Costs in Tribunal Cases: When the Department Is Asked to Pay

What a cost order in a tribunal case actually is

A cost order is a direction in the Tribunal's judgment, or in an interim order, that one party pay a stated sum to another, or sometimes to a legal aid body or a welfare fund. In civil suits, costs follow detailed rules in the Code of Civil Procedure. The Central Administrative Tribunal is not bound by the CPC under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and it sets its own procedure on the principles of natural justice. Costs are part of how it controls that procedure, and High Courts have long accepted its power to award them while checking how it is used.

In practice there are three kinds. Costs on the final result, where the losing side is told to pay the winner a sum at the end. Costs for a particular step, such as an adjournment taken without good reason or a reply filed after several chances. And exemplary costs, a larger amount meant to mark the Tribunal's disapproval of conduct that wasted public time or harassed an employee.

Costs are separate from what you claimed in the OA. If the Tribunal orders your pension revised with arrears and interest, those are your dues. Costs are an addition, paid for having had to litigate at all.

Why most service orders say 'no order as to costs'

Costs in CAT cases are the exception, not the rule. Read a hundred judgments and you will find that most end with the words 'no order as to costs' or 'parties to bear their own costs'. That is not a sign the Tribunal thought your case weak. Service disputes are seen as disputes between an employer and its own staff about rules and records, where the government is expected to follow the law and the employee is expected to raise grievances through the system. Unless one side behaved badly, the Tribunal usually leaves each to bear its own expenses.

There is also a practical reason. Many service cases turn on genuine questions of interpretation: whether a circular applies, how a pay rule is read, whether a period counts as qualifying service. A department that defends such a case in good faith and loses is not usually penalised. The position changes where the answer was already settled and the department forced the employee to litigate anyway.

So the honest expectation for most applicants is this: if you win, you get your relief, perhaps with interest, and you meet your own legal fees. Costs are a bonus that depends on how the department conducted itself, and you improve the chances only by proving that conduct.

The government's own approach to litigation points the same way. Ministries are expected to avoid contesting claims that are already covered by a binding judgment or a clear instruction, and to settle such claims at the departmental level. When an office ignores that expectation, the Tribunal is more willing to say so in money. When the office had a real point to argue, it is not. That is why the same bench can award costs in one pension case on Monday and decline them in a seniority case on Tuesday.

Costs in CAT cases: the kinds of order you may see

When costs against the department are actually ordered

The Tribunal awards costs against the department in a fairly predictable set of situations. The first is avoidable litigation: an employee's claim was covered by a DoPT office memorandum, a Supreme Court judgment or an earlier order of the same bench in an identical case, and the department still refused, leaving the employee no option but to file. Pension and gratuity cases where dues were held without any proceeding pending fall here often.

The second is delay in the case itself. Government counsel seeks time to file a reply three, four or five times, and the Tribunal finally grants one more chance on payment of costs. If the department still does not file, the bench may proceed without a reply. Our guide on the department not filing its reply describes this stage, and the one on adjournments and the price of asking for time covers the same point from both sides.

The third is disregard of the Tribunal's own orders: an interim direction ignored, or a final order implemented only after a contempt petition. When contempt is closed because the department complied late, the bench sometimes awards costs to the applicant who had to come back. The fourth is plain harassment, such as repeated recovery attempts against a low-paid retiree after courts had already barred them.

Exemplary costs and costs recovered from the officer

Sometimes the Tribunal goes further and directs that costs be recovered from the officer responsible, or that a remark be placed in that officer's record. These directions draw strong resistance, because the officer was usually not a party in a personal capacity and may not have been heard. Higher courts check them closely.

A recent example is Mangtu v. Commissioner of Police, decided by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 11 December 2025. The Tribunal had quashed a Delhi Police head constable's penalty and, in addition, imposed Rs 50,000 costs on each of two senior officers and directed adverse entries in their APARs. The High Court left the relief to the employee untouched but set aside the punitive directions, because the Tribunal had recorded no finding of mala fides or deliberate abuse of authority. Administrative lapses alone, it held, did not justify them.

The lesson for an applicant is to ask for what can be sustained. Costs against the department as an institution are the normal form. A request for personal costs on an officer makes sense only where the record shows bad faith: an officer who refused a settled claim after being told the law, or who ignored the Tribunal's order knowingly. If you make that request, name the officer as a party where possible and point to the documents that show the conduct.

Advocate B.K. Singh's first tip: build the costs argument before you file

Advocate B.K. Singh's view is that costs are won in the months before the OA, not at the final hearing. The Tribunal will ask one question: did the department know it was wrong and refuse anyway? You answer that with documents. A representation that cited the governing office memorandum, a reminder that attached the Supreme Court judgment, a reply that ignored both: that sequence shows the department chose to litigate.

Most costs in CAT cases that do get awarded trace back to such a record. So when he advises an employee who is still at the representation stage, he asks for the representation to state the rule or judgment plainly and to ask the department to decide within a stated time. A vague letter of complaint does not set up costs. A precise one, left unanswered, does. Annex these letters in date order, and refer to them again in the paragraph where you seek costs.

How to ask for costs in your OA and at the hearing

1. Include costs in the relief clause

   Add a separate prayer for costs of the application, after the main reliefs. Many applicants leave it out, and a Tribunal rarely awards what nobody asked for. Our guide on framing the relief clause shows where it fits.

2. Plead the facts that justify costs

   In the facts and grounds, say in two or three sentences why the department should bear the cost: the rule was settled, the claim was ignored, dues were held without a proceeding. Point to the annexures.

3. Keep a record of every adjournment

   Note each date on which the department sought time and the reason given. If there are several, mention them when the next request is made and ask that any further time be on costs.

4. Raise it again at the final hearing

   In your short written notes, give costs one paragraph with the dates. Oral arguments end quickly, and a single line in the notes reminds the bench.

5. Ask for costs when closing a contempt

   If the department complies only after notice in contempt, ask that the petition be closed with costs for the expense of having to file it.

6. Check the final order

   If the order is silent on costs although you prayed for them, that is generally treated as a refusal. A review is rarely worth filing on costs alone, and a writ on costs alone is seldom sensible either.

Costs against the employee: when it can happen

Applicants sometimes fear that losing an OA means paying the government's costs. That is uncommon. The Tribunal rarely imposes costs on an employee who brings a genuine grievance and loses on the merits. The risk arises from conduct, not from losing.

The usual triggers are suppressing an earlier case or order, filing repeated OAs on a claim already decided, making false statements in the verification, or using litigation to delay a transfer or a vacation of quarters with no real ground. A party in person who files a string of applications on the same issue can also attract costs. If the department has already decided your claim and a bench has upheld it, the answer is a writ to the High Court, not a fresh OA.

The protection is simple: disclose every earlier representation, OA, writ and order in your application, as the form requires, even if you think it is unhelpful. Disclosed history is rarely held against you. Hidden history usually is.

Costs, interest and compensation are three different claims

Applicants often mix these, and the mix weakens the prayer. Interest compensates you for money paid late. For pension and gratuity there is a rule-based route: Rule 65 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 provides interest at the GPF rate where gratuity or pension is delayed for reasons attributable to administrative lapse. For pay arrears there is no equivalent rule, but the Tribunal can award interest on delayed dues where the delay was unjustified. See our page on pay arrears sanctioned but not credited.

Costs compensate, partly, for the expense of having to litigate. Compensation or damages for mental agony is a separate claim again, which the Tribunal awards only rarely in service cases, and usually in modest sums.

Pray for each separately and give the basis for each. A prayer that says 'grant interest, costs and damages of Rs 10 lakh' without reasons is likely to be ignored. A prayer for interest under Rule 65 from a stated date, plus costs because three letters went unanswered, is more likely to be taken seriously.

Time and cost to expect around a cost order

Documents that support a prayer for costs

• Your representations, each showing the date of submission and the receipt stamp or diary number
• Reminders sent and any replies, especially replies that ignored the rule you cited
• The office memorandum, rule or judgment that settled your claim before you filed
• Any earlier order of the same bench granting the same relief to a colleague
• Order sheets of your OA recording each adjournment sought by the department
• Proof of when the Tribunal's order was served, if you are asking for costs in contempt
• Pension or pay slips showing the amount held back and for how long

Getting the costs paid once they are awarded

A cost order is part of the Tribunal's judgment and has to be complied with like the rest of it. When you serve the order on the department, mention the costs in a separate line of your covering letter and give your bank details. Our guide on serving the order and following up explains how to fix the compliance date with proof.

Costs imposed as a condition for an adjournment are usually meant to be paid before the next date. If they are not paid, tell the bench on that date. The Tribunal may refuse the department's reply, or proceed without it, or extend the condition. Do not quietly accept unpaid costs, because the record should show that the condition was not met.

Where costs are payable to a fund rather than to you, the department deposits the amount and files a receipt. You need not chase it, but you can point out non-payment if the department again asks for indulgence.

Which forum decides costs, and what happens on appeal

Costs in your OA are decided by the bench that hears it, which depends on where you are posted or where the cause of action arose, under the CAT (Procedure) Rules. A Kolkata postal employee's costs are decided at the Kolkata Bench, an Ernakulam teacher's at the Ernakulam Bench. For an overview of how the Tribunal works, see our page on the Central Administrative Tribunal and the cases it hears.

If the department files a writ in the High Court against the order, it may challenge only the costs, only the main relief, or both. The High Court can reduce or set aside costs while upholding your relief, as happened in the Delhi Police case mentioned above. The High Court also makes its own order on costs for the writ, and the Supreme Court has at times imposed costs on the government for pressing hopeless appeals against retirees.

None of this applies to soldiers, sailors and airmen, whose cases belong to the Armed Forces Tribunal, or to CAPF personnel and PSU or bank staff, who usually file writs in the High Court. Those forums decide costs by their own practice, though the thinking is much the same: conduct counts for more than the result.

Retirees, candidates, Group A officers and railway staff

Retirees, and especially Group C retirees and family pensioners, are the applicants most likely to receive costs, because benches are least patient with dues held from people without salary. If you are a pensioner, stress the time the money was held and the representations you made. Our page on pension and gratuity not released explains the claim itself.

Candidates in recruitment disputes rarely get costs, because the cases usually turn on eligibility and interpretation. They are, however, more exposed to costs against them if they file late, file twice or hide an earlier petition. Group A officers in promotion and seniority cases also seldom get costs, since those cases usually involve genuine questions and affected colleagues.

Railway and postal staff with claims covered by a Railway Board letter or a Directorate instruction are in a good position to ask for costs if the division refused to apply its own instruction. Defence civilians whose dues were held by a Controller of Defence Accounts after a clear sanction can make the same argument.

Advocate B.K. Singh's second tip: do not let costs become the fight

Advocate B.K. Singh tells clients that costs should be one paragraph in a case, never its centre. A litigation costs award is welcome, but it is not why you filed. A bench that senses the applicant is more interested in punishing an officer than in getting the pay re-fixed tends to lose sympathy. Ask for costs firmly, prove the department's conduct, and leave the amount to the Tribunal.

He also suggests thinking before resisting a department's request for time. If the department wants two weeks to obtain instructions that might settle your claim without a hearing, agreeing on condition of costs may get you the relief faster. Opposing every adjournment can be right when a retiree is waiting for pension; it is less useful when the delay is short and the reason is genuine.

What to do this week

If you have not filed yet, gather your representations and reminders in date order and check that at least one of them names the rule or judgment that supports you. If it does not, send one now and give the department a reasonable time. That letter, ignored, is the foundation of a later prayer for costs. Read our general note on what affects the cost of a service case to plan your own expenses.

If your OA is pending, keep a running note of every adjournment the department takes. If costs have been awarded and not paid, raise it in writing with the paying office. For advice on whether your case justifies a prayer for costs, or on how preparing your Original Application under Section 19 can set it up, contact Advocate B.K. Singh.