Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5745

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
M.S. Sreekumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 2095/2017|M.A. No. 2488/2023|O.A. No. 478/2020|O.A. No. 1981/2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Ms. Sarika, Ms. Muskan Jain, Mr. Pranav, Ms. Ashu Tiwari
For the Respondents: Mr. S. M. Arif, Mr. S. N. Verma

An issue that has attained finality up to the Supreme Court cannot be reopened and reversed by the same party based on a subsequent, contradictory judgment from a coordinate Bench.

Headnote:(A) ACP Scheme - Financial upgradation - Withdrawal of ACP benefits - Doctrine of approbate and reprobate - Binding precedent - Judgment in personam - Principles of natural justice - Recovery. The respondents withdrew the 1st ACP benefit granted to the applicants in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500, after the same had been granted pursuant to a judicial order (O.A. No. 514/2002) that had attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal held that the respondents could not review and withdraw the benefits based on a subsequent, contradictory decision from another Bench, as the earlier decision was binding. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, noting that the respondents had implemented the benefits and could not later reverse them. The Tribunal also emphasized that the decision in the subsequent case was a judgment in personam, applicable only to the facts of that case, and could not be used to reopen settled matters. The withdrawal of benefits without a fresh recommendation from the Screening Committee was held to be procedurally invalid. The reduction of pay and recovery were termed punitive actions attracting the principles of natural justice. (Paras 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14) Fact of the case: The applicants, working in the subordinate engineering cadre of All India Radio and Doordarshan, were granted the 1st ACP benefit in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 pursuant to the judgment of the Patna Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 514/2002, which was upheld by the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the respondents issued a show cause notice and passed orders withdrawing this benefit, relying on a later decision (O.A. No. 173/2009) and certain DoPT clarifications. The applicants challenged the show cause notice and the withdrawal orders.

Findings of Court:
The impugned show cause notice and the orders withdrawing the 1st ACP benefits are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the benefit and refund any recovery made, with compliance within three months.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the withdrawal of the ACP benefit after it had been granted pursuant to a final judicial order and whether a subsequent contradictory decision by a coordinate Bench could justify such a review.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an issue which has attained finality at the Supreme Court level cannot be reversed on the basis of a subsequent decision. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevents the respondents from implementing a benefit and then withdrawing it. A judgment in personam cannot be applied to settle matters already adjudicated. Any review of benefits must follow proper procedure, including a fresh recommendation from the Screening Committee.

Result: The Original Applications were allowed. The impugned Show Cause Notice and orders were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to restore the 1st ACP benefit and refund any recovery made, within a period of three months. No costs.

Table of Content
1. a court order granting benefits attains finality upon supreme court dismissal of slp. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. acp financial upgradation cannot exceed the next promotional post's pay scale. (Para 4)
3. dopt's 10.02.2000 clarification applies only when feeder and promotional posts are merged. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. a judgment's binding authority is limited to its ratio decidendi, not obiter dicta. (Para 8 , 9)
5. benefits granted under a final court order cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the administration. (Para 10)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

1.Since a common question of facts and law arises in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from O.A. No. 2095/2017 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The reliefs prayed for in O.A. No. 2095/2017, reads as under:

“a. QUASH the Show Cause Notice No. 8/7/2014-S-IV (B)/431 dated 06/08.07.2016, AND b. QUASH the Order No. 8/7/2014-S-IV (B) (Vol.II)/262 dated 23/05/2017, AND c. QUASH the Order No. 8/7/2014-S-IV (B) (Vol.II)/259 dated 23/05/2017, AND

d. CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT the respondents to restore the 1st ACP granted to the applicants in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500, with all consequential benefits, AND e. GRANT costs in favour of the Applicants and PASS any other or further order(s) in favour of the Applicants, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just & proper in the above-mentioned facts & circumstances.”

3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted that the present Original Application has been filed against the arbitrary and illegal withdrawal of the 1st ACP benefit granted to the applicants in the pay scale of Rs. 8000–13500, vide impugned orders dated 23.05.2017, preceded by a show cause notice dated 06/08.07.2016.

3.1. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submitted that the respondents acted on mere assumptions and presumptions, without properly appreciating the submissions and settled legal position, and passed the impugned orders in contravention of binding judicial pronouncements.

3.2. Learned senior counsel contended that the applicants belong to the subordinate engineering cadre in All India Radio and Doordarshan, comprising posts such as Technician, Senior Technician, Engineering Assistant (EA), Senior Engineering Assistant (SEA) and Assistant Engineer (AE), and that the post of EA is not an isolated post but part of a clear promotional hierarchy. Despite this, the respondents failed to appreciate that similarly situated employees had already been granted the benefit of ACP in the higher pay scale pursuant to judicial orders, including in O.A. No. 514/2002 by the Patna Bench of this Tribunal, which attained finality up to the level of Hon’ble High Court of Patna in (CWJC 6451/2010).

3.3. Learned senior counsel further contended that even the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Ministry of Law had opined in favour of granting ACP benefits in the pre- revised scale of Rs. 8000–13500, and the respondents themselves had acknowledged that the applicants are similarly situated to those who were granted such benefits. However, ignoring these material facts, the respondents proceeded to withdraw the benefits, rendering the show cause notice an empty formality.

3.4. Learned senior counsel emphasized that as per the ACP Scheme and relevant clarifications, particularly DoPT clarification dated 10.02.2000, where feeder and promotional posts were merged into a single pay scale, earlier promotions are to be ignored for the purpose of financial upgradation, and denial of such benefit places the applicants at a disadvantage vis-à-vis fresh entrants. It was argued that the applicants were rightly granted the 1st ACP after completion of 12 years of service, and the same could not have been withdrawn subsequently.

3.5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant further argued that the imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5745

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALManish Garg, Member (J), Anand S. Khati, Member (A)M.S. Sreekumar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. No. 2095/2017|M.A. No. 2488/2023|O.A. No. 478/2020|O.A. No. 1981/2018

An issue that has attained finality up to the Supreme Court cannot be reopened and reversed by the same party based on a subsequent, contradictory judgment from a coordinate Bench.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
M.S. Sreekumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 2095/2017|M.A. No. 2488/2023|O.A. No. 478/2020|O.A. No. 1981/2018