Application dismissed for want of instructions after applicants failed to communicate with counsel despite repeated opportunities.

The applicants, who joined as Preventive Officers in 1994 and were promoted as Superintendents of Customs in 2003, challenged their provisional reversion and subsequent re-promotion orders.

In an earlier proceeding, OA No. 944/2005, the Tribunal set aside the reversion and directed a review DPC; the applicants’ services were thereafter regularised with effect from 7 December 2005.

Following the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, their pay was stepped up to the equivalent of Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of ₹5,400 from 2007.

The respondents subsequently cancelled the financial upgradation granted from 2007 and restricted it to 2009.

After proceedings in OA No. 494/2018, the respondents issued a show-cause notice, considered the applicants’ explanations, and rejected their request by order dated 5 September 2018.

In the present OA, the applicants sought quashing of the orders dated 6 October 2017 and 5 September 2018, restoration of Grade Pay of ₹5,400 from 2007, grant of MACP from 2017, and refund of recovered amounts.

At the hearing, counsel stated that the applicants had neither contacted him nor provided instructions despite sufficient opportunities.

Whether the applicants were entitled to restoration of the Grade Pay of ₹5,400 from 2007 and financial upgradation under the MACP scheme from 2017.

Whether the respondents’ orders dated 6 October 2017 and 5 September 2018 were liable to be quashed.

Whether the OA should be dismissed for want of instructions from the applicants when their counsel was unable to obtain instructions despite sufficient opportunities.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a matter may be dismissed where the applicants fail to provide instructions and their counsel is consequently unable to prosecute the proceedings, particularly after sufficient opportunities have been granted.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive entitlement to MACP, pay fixation, restoration of Grade Pay, or refund of recovered amounts, and no statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

Although the OA raised substantive disputes concerning the date of entitlement to the ₹5,400 Grade Pay and MACP benefits, the Tribunal did not examine those issues on merits.

The applicants’ counsel expressly submitted that the applicants had not contacted him or furnished instructions after filing the OA.

After granting sufficient opportunities, and in the absence of any further instructions enabling effective prosecution of the case, the Tribunal treated the matter as incapable of being proceeded with and dismissed it for want of instructions.

It neither upheld nor rejected the applicants’ substantive claims regarding MACP, restoration of Grade Pay, or refund of recoveries.

No order was made as to costs.