Union of India challenged C.A.T. Cuttack Bench order directing a fresh representation for TBP benefit. The Supreme Court found no cause of action and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ application is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to carry out the Tribunal's direction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.3707 of 2016
13.09.2016 Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India.
Challenge in the present writ application has been made by the Union of India to the o
rder passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.
619 of 2012, who by its order dated 30.10.2013, passed the following order;
xxx xxx xxx
However, in the fitness of things, we would direct the applicant to prefer a fresh rep
resentation to the competent authorities elucidating his grievance in particular and bringing
to their notice the cases of those similarly circumstanced persons who have been granted the b
enefit of TBP where as he has been discriminated against, within a period of thirty days from
the date of receipt of this order and the Respondents, shall consider and dispose of the same
and communicate their decision to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of such representation. We, however, make it clear that if the Respondents come to a
conclusion that applicant is in fact similarly circumstanced with those persons who have been
granted the benefit of TBP on completion of 16 years service having regard to their date of in
itial appointment, they shall extend the same benefit to the applicant, which in our considere
d view would meet the ends of justice.
Mr. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India vehemently submits that the cas
es of the persons which have been dealt with by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, C
alcutta Bench, Calcutta is distinct from the case of the present petitioner.
We fail to understand as to why such contention is being advanced before us and why th
e present writ application has come to be filed. The order of the learned
Tribunal is clear to the extent that if the Respondents come to a conclusion that applicant is
in fact similarly circumstanced with those persons who have been granted the benefit of TBP o
n completion of 16 years service having regard to their date of initial appointment, they shal
l extend the same benefit to the applicant. Such determination has been clearly left to the pe
titioners and we fail to understand as to what cause of action subsists for challenging the sa
me.
Accordingly, we find no ground to entertain this writ application and direct that the
petitioners shall carry out the direction passed by the learned Tribunal.
The writ application is accordingly dismissed.
.. I. Mahanty, J.
..
Biswajit Mohanty, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the candidate has a cause of action to challenge the Tribunal's directions for a fresh representation regarding TBP benefit.
Union of India
Respondents
I. Mahanty
Biswajit Mohanty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court