Dinesh Kumar Meena vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking extension of the benefit granted in the earlier proceedings.

The applicant had earlier filed an Original Application before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, being O.A. No. 224 of 2015, wherein he was arrayed as Applicant No. 16. In the said proceedings, the applicants had sought, inter alia, the benefit of counting their eight years of service for the purpose of consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector of Customs, subject to the applicable eligibility conditions.

The said Original Application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.06.2023.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{4. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by some of the applicants before} the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. By order dated 28.06.2024 in WP No. 15470/2023, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and granted the consequential relief.

It is an admitted position that the present applicant was not a party to the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The matter, however, thereafter proceeded further, as the respondents challenged the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. We are informed that the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents was dismissed.

Thereafter, the respondents implemented the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court, as affirmed by the dismissal of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by issuing Establishment Office Order No. 125 of 2026 dated 31.07.2026, extending the benefit to the concerned officers.

The grievance of the applicant is that, despite the fact that he was one of the original applicants in O.A. No. 224/2015 and was arrayed as Applicant No. 16 therein, the benefit flowing from the judgment has not been extended to him.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant cannot be treated as a mere fence-sitter. It is submitted that the applicant had participated in the original proceedings and had thereafter made representations seeking extension of the benefit granted by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{9. It is further submitted that the respondents have extended the benefit of the} said judgment even to certain officers who were not originally parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal but who had subsequently joined the proceedings or sought similar relief before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the applicant, having extended the benefit to such persons, the respondents could not have denied the same benefit to the applicant, who was admittedly an original applicant in O.A. No. 224/2015.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors v/s. C. Lalitha, contending that similarly situated employees ought not to be subjected to discriminatory treatment and that, in appropriate circumstances, the benefit of a judgment may be extended to similarly situated persons.

We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and perused the material placed on record.

It is an admitted fact that the applicant was arrayed as Applicant No. 16 in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal. It is, however, equally undisputed that the applicant was not one of the petitioners who subsequently approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay challenging the order of the Tribunal.

The question, therefore, is whether the applicant's failure to challenge the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court would amount to acquiescence in, or acceptance of, the said order, so as to render the same final and binding upon him.

In our considered view, once the applicant, despite being a party to the Original Application, did not challenge the order of the Tribunal before the competent constitutional court, the said order attained finality insofar as the applicant is concerned. The applicant cannot, at this stage, seek to reopen the very same issue by instituting the present proceedings after having allowed the order of the Tribunal to attain finality between him and the respondents.

The present application, in substance, seeks to re-agitate an issue which had already been adjudicated in proceedings to which the applicant himself was a party. The principle of finality of litigation, therefore, operates against the applicant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

The reliance placed upon the decision in State of Karnataka and Ors. v/s. C. Lalitha, does not assist the applicant in the facts of the present case, particularly in view of the fact that the applicant had himself been a party to the original proceedings but did not challenge the adverse order passed therein.

In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the action of the respondents. The present application is accordingly dismissed. Pending MA’s, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.