Dismissed¶¶37

Union of India Rep by the General Manager v. E Jeyapal

Madras HC25 Feb 2025WP/6534/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Estoppel against writ-petitioner who consented to Tribunal disposal in terms of earlier OA; consented order of CAT Chennai Bench (OA 684/2018, order dt. 01.02.2024, in terms of OA 1628/2017 disposed 20.10.2023) not interfered with; III MACP Scheme upgradation to Grade Pay Rs.4800/- from 27.12.2011; qualifying service objection (ten years under second financial upgradation / thirty years from appointment); Union of India / Southern Railway v. E.Jeyapal; writ of certiorari under Article 226; Madras High Court; dismissed, no costs; W.M.P.No.7203 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners, having themselves requested the Tribunal to pass final orders in terms of O.A.No.1628 of 2017, are estopped from challenging the resulting consented order. ¶¶31

Union of India Rep by the General Manager Vs E Jeyapal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.6534 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 25.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶7

W.P.No.6534 of 2025 and

¶8

W.M.P.No.7203 of 2025

¶9

1.The Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

¶10

2.The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madurai Division, Madurai – 625 010.

...Petitioners

E.Jeyapal

...Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 01.02.2024 in O.A.No.684 of 2018 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Janarthanam

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.P.No.6534 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶22

Heard Mr.S.Janarthanam, Senior Panel Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners/Southern Railway. In view of the final order to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶23

2. When the respondent herein had requested the petitioners for upgradation under the III Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme to Grade Pay Rs.4800/- from 27.12.2011, on the ground that the second financial upgradation was given with effect from 01.09.2008 instead of 27.12.2011, his request came to be rejected by the petitioners, on the sole ground that he has not completed ten years of qualifying service under the second financial upgradation or thirty years of qualifying service from the date of his appointment. This order of rejection was put under challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A/310/00684/2018. By an order dated 01.02.2024, the Tribunal had recorded that identical challenge was made before the Tribunal in O.A.No.1628 of 2017, which was disposed of by the Bench on 20.10.2023

¶24

and thereby disposed of the Original Application in terms of the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/4

¶26

W.P.No.6534 of 2025

¶27

passed in O.A.No.1628 of 2017.

¶28

Before the Tribunal, a reference to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1628 of 2017 was submitted by the counsels on either

¶29

side and in view of the consented submissions made, the Tribunal had ventured to pass final orders. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

¶30

“6. However, the learned counsels on both the sides, in unison, submitted that, as an identical issue, covered under OA 1628 of 2017, has been disposed of by a Bench of this Tribunal on 20.10.2023, and the present OA may be disposed of on the same lines.”

¶31

We fail to understand as to how the petitioners herein, who had requested the Tribunal to pass orders in terms of O.A.No.1628 of 2017, can now challenge the said consented order before us. When the very request to pass final orders in terms of O.A.No.1628 of 2017 was also made by the petitioners herein, they are now estopped from challenging the said consented order. On this short ground, we do not find any valid grounds to interfere with the consented order of the Tribunal.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

3/4

¶34

W.P.No.6534 of 2025

¶35

M.S.RAMESH,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

¶36

Anu

¶37

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.