Identical execution applications involving common parties and controversy must be consolidated for simultaneous hearing and adjudication.

The applicants, retired Railway Train Guards from the North Central Railway, filed an execution application seeking the implementation of the Tribunal’s order dated 11.09.2018.

The original order directed the respondents to grant financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in light of the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Writ A No. 18244/2013.

The respondents repeatedly filed compliance affidavits asserting that the applicants were ineligible for the third MACP because they had already received three promotions.

On 13.12.2024, the Tribunal had previously rejected a compliance affidavit, noting that the respondents relied solely on Railway Board letters rather than the specific High Court judgment mandated by the Tribunal's directions.

1. Whether the respondents complied with the Tribunal’s direction to decide the MACP benefits in terms of the High Court judgment in Writ A No. 18244/2013.

2. Whether the present execution application should be consolidated with a similar pending matter involving identical parties and controversy.

The court referred to the principle that an executing court cannot go behind the decree but is duty-bound to construe the decree appropriately to give it true effect, as established by the Supreme Court in Bhavan Vaja v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang (1972) 2 SCC 40.

The Tribunal further emphasized the doctrine of judicial discipline, requiring administrative authorities to comply with specific judicial interpretations (such as those in Writ A No. 18244/2013) rather than relying exclusively on departmental circulars when a court has directed otherwise.

The applicants contended that the respondents were willfully obstructing the execution by repeating rejected arguments regarding prior promotions.

The respondents argued that the decree was effectively satisfied as the applicants had already availed three promotions, rendering them ineligible for further MACP benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had failed to address the specific legal interpretation required by the order dated 11.09.2018 and the subsequent observation on 13.12.2024.

Rather than issuing an attachment order as requested by the applicants, the Tribunal identified that a identical execution application (MA No. 1020 of 2021) involving the same controversy and respondents was pending for a future date.

The Tribunal reasoned that for the sake of consistency and judicial economy, both applications must be heard together.

The Tribunal directed the Registry to connect the current application (MA No. 1022 of 2021) with the identical matter (MA No. 1020 of 2021).

The matters are ordered to be listed together for hearing on 11.05.2026.