New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stayed the reinstatement of 1994-batch AGMUT-cadre IAS officer Rinku Dhugga, who was compulsorily retired by the Centre in 2023. The stay comes after the Delhi High Court set aside her compulsory retirement and upheld an order directing her reinstatement.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, issued notice to Dhugga on the Centre’s challenge to the Delhi High Court judgment and directed that her reinstatement remain stayed pending further hearing. The matter has been listed for October 13, 2026.
Dhugga was compulsorily retired by the Centre on August 7, 2023, under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, following a review of her service record. At the time, the Review Committee considered, among other things, disciplinary proceedings relating to an alleged unauthorised visit abroad and the 2022 controversy involving her entering Delhi’s Thyagaraj Stadium with her dog after visiting hours.
She challenged the compulsory retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which set it aside in August 2025 and ordered her reinstatement. The Union government challenged the decision before the Delhi High Court, but a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the Centre’s petition on April 15, 2026, upholding the CAT order.
The Delhi High Court held that the decision to compulsorily retire Dhugga could not be sustained. It noted that the Review Committee had not adequately considered aspects of her service record, including outstanding APAR gradings, absence of adverse remarks and her consideration for promotion. The court also observed that compulsory retirement is intended to weed out “deadwood” from service and found that the material in her case did not support such a conclusion.
The Supreme Court’s latest order does not decide the merits of Dhugga’s compulsory retirement. It only puts her reinstatement on hold while the Centre’s appeal is examined.























