Amit Kumar Son Of Late Madhusudan Gurjar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted that the Jaipur Tribunal, when considering the petitioners' interim relief application on September 6, 2023, was not presented with the Jodhpur Bench's order dated September 5, 2023, in Pritam Sharma's case. The Tribunal had only considered the interim order dated September 1, 2023, in Manoj Kumar Meena's case, which was granted before reversion. The respondents did not challenge the subsequent interim orders dated September 5, 2023, and September 8, 2023, passed by the Jodhpur Bench in the cases of Pritam Kumar Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma, respectively, which directed maintenance of status-quo ante even after reversion. The Court found that since the respondents had complied with these orders and not challenged them, the Tribunal was required to consider this aspect. The Court granted the petitioners liberty to apply for modification of the September 6, 2023 order, bringing the Jodhpur Bench's orders to the Jaipur Tribunal's notice. The Tribunal was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law at the earliest. The principle established is that when a court or tribunal is faced with conflicting interim orders on similar facts from different benches of the same judicial hierarchy, it should consider all relevant orders and ensure consistency, especially when subsequent orders have not been challenged.

Facts

The petitioners, Superintendents in the CGST service, challenged an order dated September 6, 2023, by which their application for interim relief was rejected. The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioners had already been reverted. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal Benches at Jaipur and Jodhpur were passing conflicting orders on the same issue of seniority, affecting eleven officers. They contended that the Jodhpur Bench had granted status-quo ante orders even after reversion in cases like Pritam Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma, but similar protection was denied to them. The respondents argued that the petitioners had not brought the Jodhpur Bench's order in Pritam Sharma's case to the Jaipur Tribunal's notice, relying only on an earlier interim order that was granted before reversion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for interim relief by distinguishing their case from other similar matters where status-quo ante orders were granted, despite the petitioners having been reverted? 2. Whether the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal acted inconsistently by denying interim relief to the petitioners when the Jodhpur Bench had granted status-quo ante orders, even post-reversion, in similar cases? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the Jaipur and Jodhpur Benches of the Tribunal were issuing conflicting orders concerning seniority and reversion. They relied on interim orders dated September 5, 2023, and September 8, 2023, passed by the Jodhpur Bench in the cases of Pritam Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma, respectively, which granted status-quo ante even after the concerned officers had been reverted. They contended that they were similarly situated and deserved similar protection. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioners had not brought the order dated September 5, 2023, in Pritam Sharma's case to the notice of the Jaipur Tribunal. They submitted that the petitioners had only relied on an earlier interim order dated September 1, 2023, in O.A. No. 453/2023 (Manoj Kumar Meena & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), where interim protection was granted before reversion. Therefore, they contended that the Jaipur Tribunal's order was not illegal.