Sri. M G Ramachandra vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the applications filed by the petitioners in O.A.Nos.1580 to 1589/2014 were not decided on merits but were dismissed by following a previous order. The Court noted that the applicants in the earlier referred cases were subsequently given an opportunity to file a fresh application, which was considered. Therefore, the Court opined that this opportunity should be extended to the petitioners herein as well, subject to the facts being similar. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated March 16, 2016, passed in O.A.Nos.1580 to 1589/2014, and the order dated February 6, 2018, in R.A.No.170/00043/2016. The applications were remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on their merits. The Court also directed the Tribunal to decide the matter at the earliest, given the age of the litigation.

Facts

The petitioners, Superintendents of Central Tax, filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench. Their original applications (O.A.Nos.1580 to 1589/2014) seeking directions regarding their promotion were dismissed by the CAT on March 16, 2016. The CAT had dismissed these applications by following a previous order in similar matters (O.A.Nos.1673 to 1677/2014). A review application filed by the petitioners (R.A.No.170/00043/2016) was also dismissed on February 6, 2018, affirming the earlier dismissal. The petitioners argued that applicants in the earlier referred cases were later permitted to file a fresh application, which was considered for the same relief denied to them. They contended that, on grounds of parity, they should also be granted similar consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to similar relief as granted to applicants in O.A.Nos.1673 to 1677/2014, on the grounds of parity, when their original applications were dismissed without a decision on merits? The petitioners argued that their applications were dismissed by following a previous order and not on merits. They highlighted that the applicants in the earlier referred cases were subsequently allowed to file a fresh application which was considered for the same relief. Therefore, they contended that on the principle of parity, similar consideration should be extended to them. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.