THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28838 of 2011 Dated: 22-11-2011 Between Y. Satyanarayana and others …Petitioners And Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others. …Respondents Oral order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri Siva, learned counsel for the petitioners/ applicants and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government for respondents 1 to 3. Some unsuccessful applicants in O.A.No. 832 of 2010 preferred this writ petition against the order dated 27-4-2011 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting the O.A. The applicants joined the Defence Accounts Department under the Ministry of Defence, subsequently passed Subordinate Accounts Service examination and were appointed as Sections Officers and as Assistant Accounts Officers. They were thereafter promoted to the cadre of Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS) and appointed as Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts (ACDA), a group ‘A’ post in the Junior Time Scale of Rs.2200-4000 (IV Central Pay Commission) and to the scale of Rs.8000-13500 in the V Central Pay Commission. The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the post of ACDA to which they were promoted from the category of Senior Accounts Officer does not belong to the same cadre or the same class as the post of Senior Accounts Officer and they are entitled to the Senior Time Scale of pay and not the Junior Time Scale of pay in the category of ACDA in which category they presently serve. Reliance was placed by the petitioners on an earlier decision of the Bangalore Bench of the CAT in O.A.No. 153 of 1996 wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to fix the pay of the applicant therein in the Senior Time Scale from the date he was appointed to the IDAS. Reliance was also placed on a similar order passed by the Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No. 469 of 1997. Both these decisions of the Bangalore Bench and the Hyderabad Bench of the CAT were followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court (a learned Single Judge) in Writ Petition No. 1342 of 1979, dated 9-12-1980. At the hearing of the O.A. it was represented on behalf of the Central Government that the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 1342 of 1979 was challenged by the Union of India in a Letters Patent Appeal No. 50 of 1981. The said appeal was disposed of on 16-3-2001 as follows: “Impugned writ court judgment is put in abeyance to the extent it holds that Junior Scale Officers working against Senior scale posts were entitled to Sr. Time Scale. Matter is remanded to writ court for fresh consideration. It is requested to allow Appellants to file a new counter to respondents’ writ petition and proceed to dispose it off. This would not, however, affect respondents in any way because appellants had implemented the writ court order in their case which shall not however, constitute any precedent for any other case”. The learned Tribunal, by the order impugned rejected the O.A. recording the following: “From the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 16-3- 2001 in LPA 50/1981, we find that the earlier order of the Hon’ble High Court has been kept in abeyance and the matter is remanded back to the writ court for fresh consideration. In our view, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reconsider an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Moreover, Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to decide as to whether the said order of the Hon’ble High Court can be reconsidered its own order passed in 1980. That being the position when the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 1342 of 1979 has been suspended by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 16-3-2001 in LPA No. 50/81 with a categorical mention that the order of the Hon’ble High Court shall not constitute any precedent for any other case, we are in agreement with the learned Sr. Standing counsel for the respondents that the applicants herein cannot be granted the relief prayed for in this O.A. In view of the above, the OA is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.” From the chronology of events and circumstances adverted to above, it is clear that the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had kept in abeyance the judgment of the learned Single Judge, to the extent the learned single Bench Judgment held that Junior Scale Officers working against Senior scale posts were entitled to Senior Time Scale. The matter was remanded for consideration de novo by the learned Single Bench for a fresh consideration. The learned Division Bench has not overruled the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge but remanded the matter for fresh consideration. In the circumstances, it is one thing for the Tribunal to have considered that it will await the eventual judgment of the Delhi High Court after the remand to the learned Single Judge’s Bench by the Appeal order dated 16-3-2001; or it may proceed on an independent analysis as to the merits of the case on the assumption that the findings of the learned Single Judge’s Bench of the Delhi High Court was kept in abeyance by the appellate Bench. But to treat the order of the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court as a rejection of themerits of the applicants claim appears to be an erroneous construction of the factual and legal position emerging from the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, dated 16-3-2001. The Tribunal erroneously assumed that since there is no current and operative precedent, it will not declare the law applicable to the parties. It is also requires to be noticed that the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed in its order dated 16-3-2001 that filing of a new counter by the Union in the writ petition for eventual disposal would not affect the respondents/applicants in that case, since the appellant-Union of India had already implemented the order passed by the learned Single Judge’s Bench, which, the learned Division Bench observed would not constitute any precedent for any other case. We infer from this phrase that the learned Division Bench’s order that the implementation by the Union of India of the judgment of the learned Single Judge’s Bench of the Delhi High Court granting the benefit to the employees therein would not per se constitute a precedent to employees similarly situated. On the aforesaid analysis, the W.P. is allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal dated 27-4-2011 holding the application filed by the writ petitioners-O.A.No. 832 of 2010 as misconceived and warranting dismissal, on the basis of the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 16-3-2011 in LPA No. 50 of 1981 and unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the O.A. on its merits. The order of the Tribunal dated 5-9-2011 rejecting M.A.No. 529 of 2011 filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for review of the substantive judgment dated 27-4-2011 in O.A.No., 832 of 2010 is also set aside. The Tribunal may now proceed to adjudicate upon the claims in O.A.No. 832 of 2010 on its merits. It is made clear that none of the observations made herein are intended to be an expression by this Court on the merits of the claims of the applicants or the defence of the respondents-Union of India, which must be determined in the O.A. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 22nd November, 2011 ________________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J GRR