2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2917

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Swatilekha Behera – Appellant
Versus
Steel Authority Of India Limited (sail) – Respondent
O.A./237/2024

A judicial order that has attained finality cannot be ignored or rendered nugatory by an authority by repeating the same grounds that were previously overruled.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to Equality - Application to contracts with unequal bargaining power - Principle that courts will not enforce an unfair or unreasonable clause in a contract entered into between parties with unequal bargaining power. (Para 8)

(B) Compassionate Appointment - Policy of Steel Authority of India Ltd. - Clauses 3.1(b), 5.3.1, and 5.1.1 - Employee incapacitated by neurological disease (Hemiplegia) - Option for Employee Family Benefit Scheme (EFBS) - Once an option to avail benefit under EFBS is exercised, the employee or dependent family members shall not have any claim for compassionate employment - However, where the weaker party had no meaningful choice but to assent to the contract, such a clause is unfair and unconscionable and cannot be enforced - Applicant did not deposit money or receive benefit under EFBS - Reliance on clause 5.1.1 held to be of no assistance. (Paras 5, 10)

(C) Precedent - Binding nature of judicial orders - A judicial order passed by a Tribunal is binding on all concerned, including the Tribunal itself on its administrative side, unless set aside or modified by a higher forum - An order cannot be ignored or rendered nugatory on a specious plea. (Para 9)

(D) Administrative Law - Order of Rejection - Grounds - Validity must be judged by reasons mentioned in the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise (Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851). (Para 8) (E) Finality of Orders - Once a matter attains finality, it is not open to the respondent to go behind the orders and truncate the effect thereof by hovering over the rules to get around the result. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, Swatilekha Behera, is the daughter of Sri Subhash Chandra Behera, a former employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) who suffered from Hemiplegia (neurological disease) and was declared medically invalid. The applicant’s father had initially opted for the Employee Family Benefit Scheme (EFBS) but did not deposit the required amount. The applicant applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondents citing that no such provision existed as per rules in vogue. The applicant earlier filed OA 67/2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was allowed on 05.04.2022, directing the respondents to consider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment. In compliance, the respondents passed a fresh rejection order dated 05.07.2022, reiterating the same grounds. The applicant challenged this fresh rejection before the CAT.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the order of rejection dated 05.07.2022 was contrary to the earlier judicial order dated 05.04.2022 in OA 67/2020, which had attained finality as it was not challenged. The respondents were estopped from going behind the earlier order and rejecting the claim by repeating the same stand which had already been overruled. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to issue the compliance order within 180 days.

Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents could reject the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment by repeating the same grounds that had been overruled by the Tribunal in an earlier order, and whether the respondents were bound to comply with the judicial order that had attained finality.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a judicial order passed by a Tribunal is binding on all concerned and must be obeyed and implemented without reservation. A party cannot ignore a court order on the specious plea that no such directions could have been issued. Once a matter attains finality, it is not open to the respondent to truncate the effect thereof by hovering over the rules to legitimize legal alibi to circumvent the order.

Result: OA allowed. Respondents directed to issue compliance order within 180 days. No costs. (Para 16)