SAIL Faces Third Consecutive Setback: After Whistle-Blower Rajeev Bhatia and N.P. Nimesh Back, CAT Questions Kanauzia’s Forced Premature Retirement
Chennai Bench seeks an explanation from SAIL over differential treatment of similarly placed executives after retirement orders against Bhatia and Nimesh were withdrawn
They say arrogance never pays. But what happens when one man’s imperiousness and high-handed attitude outlive his tenure, leaving an organisation to pay the price long after he has gone? Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) appears to be confronting precisely such a situation.
The Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) is facing an embarrassing question over its handling of compulsory premature retirement cases. Whistle-blower Rajeev Bhatia and executive N.P. Nimesh are already back in service after their retirement orders were withdrawn following proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Yet, another executive, Anil Kumar Kanauzia, continues to fight his case, forcing the CAT Chennai Bench to question SAIL’s differential treatment of similarly placed employees.
In an order dated October 13, 2026, in OA No. 797/2025, the Chennai Bench sought an explanation from SAIL on why Kanauzia’s compulsory retirement order, issued on February 11, 2025, has not been withdrawn when similar orders against Bhatia and Nimesh were withdrawn following proceedings before the CAT Principal Bench.
The Tribunal has directed the respondents to explain the issue through an affidavit before the next hearing, scheduled for October 27, 2026.
The latest order marks another setback for SAIL in its defence of the controversial retirement decisions and raises an uncomfortable question for the public sector steel major: why does one executive continue to face the consequences of an order that has been withdrawn in the cases of two others described by the Tribunal as similarly placed?
Two Executives Return, Third Continues Legal Battle
The developments in the three cases have placed SAIL’s handling of the February 11, 2025, retirement orders under renewed scrutiny.
According to the Chennai Bench’s order, the CAT Principal Bench disposed of the cases filed by Naveen Prakash Nimesh and Rajeev Bhatia through consent orders, directing SAIL to withdraw the impugned orders.
In Nimesh’s case, the relevant order was passed on August 31, 2026, while Bhatia’s case was dealt with on September 28, 2026.
Both executives have since returned to SAIL, according to the information available in the matter. Bhatia is particularly significant in the controversy because of his role as a whistle-blower.
Kanauzia, however, has not received the same outcome. His challenge before the Chennai Bench has now brought the apparent disparity directly before the Tribunal.
The question is no longer merely whether SAIL withdrew the earlier orders. It is why the organisation has not extended the same treatment to an employee whom the Tribunal has described as similarly placed.
CAT’s Question Puts SAIL on the Spot
The Chennai Bench made its concern explicit in the October 13 order.
It recorded that the Principal Bench had directed the withdrawal of the impugned orders in the cases of Nimesh and Bhatia. The Tribunal then questioned why Kanauzia’s order dated February 11, 2025, had not been withdrawn despite the treatment extended to the other applicants.
The respondents have been asked to explain the difference through an affidavit.
The direction is significant because SAIL will now have to place its justification on record before the next hearing. The Tribunal has not yet ordered the withdrawal of Kanauzia’s retirement order, nor has it delivered a final ruling on the merits of his challenge.
Nevertheless, the comparison with the two earlier cases puts the company’s decision-making under a sharper judicial spotlight.
An Embarrassing Question for a Public Sector Major
For a major public sector undertaking, consistency in the treatment of employees is an important administrative concern. When similar cases produce different outcomes, the organisation must be able to explain the reasons for the distinction.
SAIL’s position has become particularly uncomfortable with Bhatia and Nimesh already back in service while Kanauzia continues to pursue relief before the Tribunal.
The latest order does not establish that SAIL acted illegally or deliberately discriminated against Kanauzia. However, it makes clear that the Tribunal wants an explanation for the difference in treatment.
That explanation will be central to the next stage of the proceedings.
The case also raises broader questions about the administration of compulsory retirement orders issued on the same date against multiple employees, particularly where some orders are subsequently withdrawn through judicial proceedings.
October 27 Hearing: SAIL Must Explain
The next hearing on October 27, 2026, will be crucial for SAIL’s defence. The company has been directed to submit an affidavit explaining why Kanauzia’s order remains in force despite the withdrawal of the orders in the cases of Nimesh and Bhatia.
The Tribunal will consider the respondents’ explanation as the proceedings continue.
For now, the contrast is stark: two executives have returned to the organisation, while a third continues his legal battle over an order issued on the same date.
The central question before SAIL is simple: what is the justification for treating Kanauzia differently? The company’s affidavit will have to address the issue directly.
The October 13 order has ensured that SAIL cannot leave that question unanswered before the next hearing.
This is not going to be only a monetary setback but one big dent to the image of the biggest steelmaker of the country.
As the famous Urdu poet Muzaffar Razmi wrote:
“लम्हों ने ख़ता की थी, सदियों ने सज़ा पाई।”
For SAIL, these immortal words could well sum up the price an organisation continues to pay for decisions taken in the past.
We Report-You Decide…
