Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.23810 OF 2018 (S CAT)
BETWEEN:
Devendra Dubey S/o. Radhey Shyam Dubey, Aged about 36 years, R/o. C-102, Block-07, Income Tax Colony, Jalahalli, Bangalore.
... Petitioner (By Sri. T.C.Gupta, Advocate)
AND:
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2 2. The Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Karnataka & Goa Region, Queens Road,
Bangalore-560001. ... Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to order dated 15.03.2018 in OA No.101/2016 passed by the CAT Bench Bangalore (Devendra Dubey & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors) Annexure-B, may kindly be quashed and set aside and writ petition may kindly be allowed directing to grant minimum grade pay of the direct recruited inspectors, to the petitioners on promotion as inspectors with all consequential benefits.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, A.S.Bopanna J., made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this court assailing the order dated 15.03.2018 in O.A.101/16 at Annexure ‘B’ to the petition. The petitioners were before the CAT in a consolidated application which was filed in respect of several applicants which was numbered as O.A.170/00101/2016. When the petition had been taken up for consideration, the CAT having taken note of the relief
3 as prayed for in the application was of the opinion that the consolidated applications in the manner as filed was not maintainable and it indicated that separate applications are to be filed by each of the applicants.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the legal position is well established that such consolidated application is maintainable, keeping in view that at the first instance, the learned counsel had conceded to the position before the CAT, a different stand need not be entertained at this stage. In any event it does not prevent the learned counsel from filing separate application in favour of such of those applicants who desire to seek relief from the CAT. Hence reserving such liberty to the petitioners, the instant petition can be disposed. In that regard, it is made clear that if the applicants file separate fresh applications before the CAT, the consideration thereof shall be made on its merits and in accordance with law without treating the order impugned
4 therein as a bar to consider the case on merits. All contentions of merits are left open.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE