Union Of INDIA And Ors. vs. Raju Singh And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petition was not maintainable and found merit in the respondents' submissions. The Court noted that the CAT's order dated 13.09.2024 was passed without entering into the merits of the Original Application (OA) filed by the respondents. Crucially, the Court observed that the petitioners' counsel before the CAT had no objection to the direction given to decide the respondents' representations. Therefore, the Court concluded that it was not open for the petitioners to challenge this consent order. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy by approaching the CAT in accordance with law, especially since an order had already been passed pursuant to the CAT's direction. The Court was not inclined to entertain the petition and stated that it was open for the petitioners to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum. The petition was disposed of on these terms.

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and others, sought to modify an order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench. The CAT's order directed the Commissioner of Customs, North East Region, Shillong, to consider the representations of the respondents (applicants before the CAT) concerning their pay entitlement. The respondents argued that the CAT's order was a consent order, as the petitioners' counsel had no objection to a direction being issued to decide the representations. Subsequently, an order dated 30.04.2025 was passed by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in favor of the respondents, based on the CAT's direction and recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. The petitioners approached the High Court, seeking to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh speaking order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a petition to modify an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) when the original order was a consent order and the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy. Petitioner's argument: The petitioners sought to modify the CAT's order to reconsider the respondents' pay entitlement and pass a fresh speaking order. They implicitly argued that the CAT's order, while a consent order, did not preclude further review or modification by the High Court if there were grounds to do so, especially concerning the substantive issue of pay entitlement. Respondent's argument: The respondents vehemently opposed the petition, arguing that the CAT's order dated 13.09.2024 was a consent order, passed without entering into merits. They contended that the petitioners ought to approach the CAT if they had any grievance regarding the subsequent order passed pursuant to the CAT's direction, rather than directly approaching the High Court. They relied on the fact that the CAT directed the Commissioner to consider representations, and a subsequent order was passed, implying finality to that stage.