A different Tribunal Bench cannot adjudicate claims seeking implementation of another Bench’s order.

The applicant sought arrears of salary for the period from 24 April 1995 to 16 November 2004, with interest, alleging that the arrears remained unpaid after her reinstatement.

In OA No. 2260/1996, the Principal Bench had set aside the dismissal penalty and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits; that order was affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The applicant had also pursued the claim before the Allahabad High Court, where her writ petition and subsequent special appeal were dismissed, with the cost reduced in appeal.

She then filed the present OA with an application to condone delay. The respondents objected that any claim concerning implementation of the Principal Bench’s order should be taken to that Bench.

1. Whether the Allahabad Bench could entertain an OA seeking salary arrears claimed as consequential benefits under an order made by the Principal Bench.

2. Whether the Tribunal needed to determine the merits of the delay-condonation application once it found that the OA was not maintainable before that Bench.

The Tribunal relied on the terms of the Principal Bench’s order in OA No. 2260/1996, which set aside the dismissal penalty and directed reinstatement “with all consequential benefits”.

It held that where the relief sought is directly connected with implementation of an order made by another Bench, the applicant should approach the Bench that passed the original order; the same issue could not be re-agitated before the Allahabad Bench.

No statute or other precedent was cited in support of this reasoning.

The applicant’s claim for unpaid salary depended on the scope and implementation of the Principal Bench’s direction to reinstate her with consequential benefits.

Because that issue had been considered in the earlier OA and the present relief was directly connected with compliance with its order, the Tribunal considered the appropriate course to be an approach to the Bench that issued the direction, rather than adjudication by the Allahabad Bench.

Having found the OA not maintainable before it, the Tribunal did not examine whether the delay should be condoned or address the substantive salary claim.

It dismissed the OA and the delay-condonation application as not maintainable before that Bench, without deciding the merits of the delay application, and granted liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum.

No order as to costs was made.