A decision must be rendered by the same individuals who heard a case to ensure procedural fairness and consistency in adjudication.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - The court reviewed the Tribunal's order dated 27.10.2020 in OA No. 3701/2017 and found procedural issues regarding bench composition and reason-giving. (Paras 2.1, 2.2).

(B) Adjudication process - A decision must be rendered by the same individuals who heard the matter, as per principles of procedural fairness. (Para 2.1).

Facts of the case:
The writ petition challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' claims for the Senior Time Scale based on internal upgradation policies. The Tribunal provided reasons in a separate order by another bench.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's impugned order was set aside due to procedural irregularities. The matter was remitted for de novo hearing.

Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the Tribunal's order due to bench compositions providing differing actions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that adjudication must be conducted by the same individuals who assess the case, ensuring consistency in the decision-making process.

Result: The writ petition was disposed of with the impugned order set aside and remitted to the Tribunal.

Table of Content
1. challenge to tribunal's order (Para 1 , 2)
2. tribunal's decision & reasoning (Para 3)
3. final disposal of the writ petition (Para 4 , 7)
4. court's direction for de novo hearing (Para 5)
5. application of previous judgment (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL):--This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"] in OA No. 3701/2017.

2. According to Mr Pradeep Dahiya, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, via the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of, not only OA No. 3701/2017 but also OA No. 3913/2017. 2.1. Mr Dahiya, in this context, draws our attention to the judgment dated 08.12.2021, passed in the W.P.(C) No.12829/2021. This judgment was rendered by this Court qua the very same impugned order of the Tribunal, albeit in OA No. 3913/2017.

3. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, says that, in view of what has been noticed by this Court, he cannot argue to the contrary.

3.1. Given this circumstance, Mr Ahluwalia says that no formal reply needs to be filed on behalf of the respondents.

4. Therefore, having regard to the record, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

5. The relevant part of the judgment dated 08.12.2021, referred hereinabove, is extracted hereafter:

"1. On 15.11.2021, we had indicated as to, what was problematic with the impugned order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in OA No. 3913/2017, from which the present petition arises.

1.1 For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the said order dated 15.11.2021 is extracted hereafter:

"1. The petitioners had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') with a grievance that they had not been granted the benefit of Senior Time Scale with effect from 01.01.2017, in terms of various Office Memorandums issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), in this behalf.

1.1. The petitioners claim to be Indian Revenue Service officers, belonging to the 2013 batch.

2. The respondents, it appears, took the position that the aforesaid benefit was not granted, in cases where there was functional upgradation.

2.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that, the stand taken by the respondents is erroneous.

3. Besides this, we may note that, on 27.10.2020, the Tribunal passed the following order in O.A. No.3913/2017:

"OA is dismissed. Reasons would follow."

3.1. This order was passed by a bench comprising Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A) and Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman), while the impugned order, which is also dated 27.10.2020, whereby reasons have been furnished has been passed by Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and Ms Aradhana Johri, Member (A).

3.2 It appears to be a case where one bench heard the matter while another furnished reasons for the decision in the O.A.

4. Issue notice.

4.1. Mr. Piyush Gaur, who appears for Mr Ripudaman Bhardwaj, accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3.

4.2. On steps being taken, notice shall issue to respondent no. 2, via all permissible modes, including e-mail.

4.3. In addition, service will be effected on the standing counsel for respondent no. 2.

5. List the matter on 25.11.2021."

2. Mr Ripudaman Bhardwaj, who appears on behalf of the respondents, cannot but accept that, one Bench of the Tribunal i.e., comprising Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A) and Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) heard the matter, and the other Bench of the Tribunal i.e., consisting of Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and Ms Aradhana Johri, Member (A) furnished the reasons.

2.1 To our minds, in an adjudicatory process the person(s) who hear an aggrieved party must decide and render reasons. Concededly, this hasn't occurred in the instant case; one Bench rendered the decision while the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document