A party’s failure to challenge an adverse order bars later reopening through others’ successful appeal.

The applicant, an Appraiser in the Customs Department, was Applicant No. 16 in O.A. No. 224/2015 before the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The applicants in that proceeding sought, inter alia, counting of eight years of service for consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector of Customs, subject to applicable eligibility conditions

The Mumbai Bench dismissed the Original Application on 9 June 2023

Some applicants challenged that decision before the Bombay High Court, which, by order dated 28 June 2024 in W.P. No. 15470/2023, set aside the Tribunal’s order and granted consequential relief

The present applicant was not a petitioner before the Bombay High Court

The respondents’ challenge before the Supreme Court was dismissed, following which the respondents issued Establishment Office Order No. 125 of 2026 dated 31 July 2026, extending the benefit to the concerned officers

The applicant sought extension of the same benefit, contending that he was an original applicant in O.A. No. 224/2015 and had made representations for such relief

Whether the applicant, having been a party to O.A. No. 224/2015 but having failed to challenge the Tribunal’s adverse order before the Bombay High Court, could subsequently seek the benefit granted in proceedings instituted by other applicants

Whether the principle that similarly situated employees should receive equal treatment, as relied upon from State of Karnataka & Ors. v. C. Lalitha, entitled the applicant to extension of the consequential benefit

The Tribunal applied the principle of finality of litigation, holding that a party who does not challenge an adverse adjudication before the competent appellate or constitutional court may be treated as having acquiesced in, or accepted, that decision, which thereafter becomes final and binding against that party

The Tribunal also considered the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees, as recognised in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. C. Lalitha, but held that such principle could not assist a person who had himself been a party to the original proceedings and had allowed the adverse order to attain finality

The applicant’s status as an original party to O.A. No. 224/2015 distinguished him from a person who had never participated in the earlier litigation. Although the Bombay High Court granted relief to those applicants who challenged the Tribunal’s order, the present applicant did not join that challenge

The Tribunal therefore held that the dismissal of the original application became final insofar as the applicant was concerned, and that he could not reopen the same issue through a fresh application after permitting the adverse order to attain finality

The respondents’ extension of benefits to other officers did not override this procedural and substantive finality. Accordingly, the principle in C. Lalitha was held inapplicable in the peculiar circumstances of the case

The Original Application was dismissed, and all pending MAs, if any, were disposed of; there was no order as to costs