Relief is made contingent on the Supreme Court’s eventual determination in the analogous pending case.

The five applicants, serving as Assistant Commissioners in the Jaipur Zone of the CGST and Central Excise Department, challenged a service-related controversy concerning their entitlement to relief arising from the issue considered in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India.

The applicants relied on the Tribunal’s earlier orders in OA No. 102/2022 and OA No. 675/2024, which had directed consideration of similar claims in light of the Madras High Court’s judgment dated 6 September 2010 in M. Subramaniam.

They also relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 10 October 2017 in Union of India v. M. Subramaniam, arising from the challenge to the Madras High Court decision.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal was informed of the Supreme Court’s order dated 7 August 2026 in Union of India & Ors. v. Sebastian Anthony, staying a similar Kerala High Court judgment.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to the same relief as would ultimately be granted by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Sebastian Anthony concerning the similar service controversy.

2. Whether the Original Application could be disposed of in terms of the Tribunal’s earlier orders concerning the judgment in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India.

The Tribunal relied on the principle of judicial consistency in cases involving an identical or substantially similar controversy.

It considered the Madras High Court’s judgment dated 6 September 2010 in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India, the Supreme Court’s proceedings in Union of India v. M. Subramaniam, and the Tribunal’s prior orders in OA Nos. 102/2022 and 675/2024, which directed consequential consideration of similar claims.

However, in view of the Supreme Court’s subsequent order dated 7 August 2026 staying the Kerala High Court judgment in Sebastian Anthony, the Tribunal adopted a contingent approach: the applicants would receive the same relief as ultimately granted by the Supreme Court in that case.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents accepted that the controversy in the present matter was similar to that decided in OA No. 102/2022.

Although the applicants sought disposal in accordance with the earlier Tribunal orders and the M. Subramaniam line of authority, the Tribunal considered the later Supreme Court stay in Sebastian Anthony to be material.

Rather than independently adjudicating the applicants’ substantive entitlement, it linked their relief to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings in the similar case, thereby avoiding inconsistent or premature directions while preserving the applicants’ claim for corresponding relief.

No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.