Facts
The applicant, D. Gangadharappa, filed an Original Application seeking directions for respondents to fix his pay in the promotional hierarchy for the post of Superintending Engineer or in the hierarchy of the Pay Band and Grade Pay, as clarified in O.M. dated 09.09.2010, towards III-MACP benefits effective from 02.04.2015.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1Additionally, he sought the disbursement of arrears of salary due from 02.04.2015 with all consequential benefits due to the pay fixation.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1The applicant's counsel submitted that his case was identical to "N. Prasad vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No.13837/2017 (S-CAT)," decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on 29.10.2024.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2The Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently stayed the effect and operation of the High Court's order in "SLP (Civil) Diary No.9677/2025 [Union of India and Another vs. N. Prasad]" by an interim order dated 24.03.2025, which is still pending.
Source reference: p.3, para. 2-3Both parties agreed that a conditional order should be passed in this case, dependent on the final outcome of the pending SLP.
Source reference: p.3, para. 3Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to the same benefits as decided in N. Prasad v. Union of India, subject to the final order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.9677/2025.
Source reference: p.3, para. 3Law Applied
The Court considered the principle of legal precedence and the hierarchy of judicial pronouncements.
Source reference: no citationSpecifically, it noted the interim stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in "N. Prasad v. Union of India."
Source reference: p.3, para. 2The core principle applied was that the benefits claimed by the applicant would be contingent upon the final outcome of a related case pending before a higher judicial authority, establishing a conditional grant of relief.
Source reference: p.3, para. 3; p.4, para. 4Reasoning
The Court recognized that the applicant's claim for pay fixation and arrears was directly analogous to the issues decided in "N. Prasad v. Union of India" before the High Court of Karnataka.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2However, it noted that the High Court's judgment favorable to N. Prasad was under an interim stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Source reference: p.3, para. 2Given that the SLP was still pending, and the parties themselves agreed to a conditional order, the Tribunal found it appropriate to link the applicant's entitlement directly to the final outcome of the N. Prasad case.
Source reference: p.3, para. 3This approach avoided premature enforcement of benefits that might be overturned by the Supreme Court and aligned with the judicial hierarchy.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's benefits would be contingent upon the ultimate decision in the analogous case before the apex court.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application OA No.114/2020.
It held that the applicant shall be entitled to the same benefits which will finally be given to N. Prasad after the final order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.9677/2025.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4aThe department was directed to grant the same benefit to the applicant if such benefit is granted to N. Prasad.
Source reference: p.5, para. 4bBoth parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Source reference: p.5, para. 5Original Court PDF
D. Gangadharappa v. The Union of India, OA.No.170/00114/2020/CAT/BANGALORE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in