Apelagunta Phani Bhushan And 2 Others vs. The Union Of INDIA And 40 Others

Facts

The petitioners, Superintendents and Senior Intelligence Officers in Central Tax and Customs departments, filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench. They were aggrieved by the respondents' action of treating a higher grade pay of ₹5,400 granted after four years of service in the grade pay of ₹4,800 as a financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). Subsequently, an Interlocutory Application (M.A.) was filed by the respondents praying to delete Union of India, Central Board of Customs and Central Excise/Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and Chief Commissioner, Customs, Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad Zone, from the array of respondents, arguing their presence was not required. The CAT allowed this M.A. by an order dated March 14, 2022, which is the subject of the present writ petition.

Held

The High Court held that the order of the CAT allowing the deletion of respondents 1, 2, and 4 from the array of respondents was not sustainable. The Court found that the CAT had not assigned any reasons for accepting the plea to delete these respondents. It was further observed that the very pleadings and prayer sought in the Original Application (O.A.) necessitated a specific stand from the Union of India regarding the application of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS). The Tribunal passed the impugned order without looking into the pleadings of the O.A. The Court also noted that the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise functions under the Central Board of Customs and Central Excise, and guidance from the latter is required on policy matters. The implications of the issue were considered to be broader than individual grievances, affecting all services. Therefore, the order of the CAT was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CAT erred in allowing the deletion of Union of India, Central Board of Customs and Central Excise/Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and Chief Commissioner, Customs, Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad Zone, from the array of respondents in O.A. No. 29 of 2019, thereby setting aside the order dated March 14, 2022, passed in M.A. No. 763 of 2021. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the CAT's order was erroneous, contrary to law, and passed without jurisdiction. They argued that the CAT failed to assign any reasons for accepting the plea to delete the respondents. Furthermore, they asserted that the original O.A. required the specific stand of the Union of India on the application of MACPS, and the CAT passed the order without considering the pleadings in the O.A. They also pointed out that the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise works under the Central Board of Customs and Central Excise and requires its guidance on policy matters, and the issue had implications across all services, not just individual grievances. The presence of the Chief Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Zone, was also deemed necessary as some applicants worked in that zone. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.