A party cannot challenge a tribunal order passed on its own counsel’s submissions.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the KSAT’s dismissal of the petitioners’ applications warranted interference where the petitioners alleged that applications by similarly placed applicants had been allowed.

The court held

The writ petition was dismissed, and the KSAT’s order was left undisturbed.

It also directed

The Court reserved liberty to the petitioners to apply for payment of gratuity.

01Facts

The petitioners, retired employees who had initially served on a daily-wage basis, sought before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) a direction to count their service from initial appointment until retirement and to grant consequential benefits, relying on Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

pp. 3–4

The KSAT dismissed their applications by reference to earlier orders dismissing similar applications.

p. 4, 6

The petitioners challenged that dismissal under Articles 226 and 227, contending that the KSAT had allowed applications by similarly placed applicants.

p. 2, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the KSAT’s dismissal of the petitioners’ applications warranted interference where the petitioners alleged that applications by similarly placed applicants had been allowed.

p. 5

ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled, in these proceedings, to have their daily-wage service counted from initial appointment for consequential retirement benefits.

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

p. 2

The petitioners relied on Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018, as the basis for their claim to count service from initial daily-wage appointment.

pp. 3–4

The High Court did not set out or apply a substantive rule from that decision, nor did it decide the petitioners’ underlying service-benefit entitlement; it addressed whether the KSAT order, made in light of earlier dismissals and the petitioners’ counsel’s submissions, disclosed a ground for interference.

p. 6

04Reasoning

The High Court noted that the petitioners’ counsel had asked the KSAT to dispose of the applications in terms of earlier KSAT orders dismissing similar applications.

p. 6

It also noted that a challenge to one of those earlier orders had been dismissed by the High Court on the same day.

p. 6

As the impugned order was based on the petitioners’ own counsel’s submissions, the Court found no ground to entertain the writ petition.

p. 6

It did not independently examine the merits of the Netram Sahu claim or determine the petitioners’ entitlement to count their daily-wage service.

p. 6