Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

S.P. Pandey vs The Central Administrative ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 15892 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15892 MP
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.P. Pandey vs The Central Administrative ... on 1 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
                            1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT INDORE
                         BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                            &
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
                ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                WRIT PETITION No. 9895 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
S.P. PANDEY S/O SHRI H.B. PANDEY OCCUPATION:
SUPERINTENDENT CGST 191, PUSHPRATHNA AVENUE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....PETITIONER
(SHRI AWADHESH KUMAR PANDEY, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND
1.    THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
      BENCH   JABALPUR THROUGH   THE   DY.
      REGISTRAR OM SHANTI CHOWK KATANGA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH REVENUE
      SECRETARY NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI (DELHI)

3.    DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND THE CHAIRMAN
      CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND
      CUSTOMS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI (DELHI)

4.    THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER CGST BHOPAL ZONE,
      CGST BHAWAN , ADMINISTRATIVE AREA ,
      ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    T H E PR / COMMISSIONER CGST, MANIKBAGH
      PALACE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    THE   PR    /  COMMISSIONER MANIKABAGH
      PALACE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.    THE PR / COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CGST,
      (AUDIT), 5 T H FLOOR, OMEGA TOWERS, VIJAY
      NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                     2
8.      THE PR / COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, B-ZONE,
        3RD FLOOR, 12/27 AND 12/28, VILLAGE-
        PIPLIAKUMAR, NIPANIA, INDORE (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

9.      THE PR / COMMISSIONER CGST 29, BHARATPURI,
        ADMINISTRATIVE ZONE, UJJAIN (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

10.     THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF
        CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS, CBIC, AGCR
        BUILDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI , ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 2 & 10.
(SHRI PRASANNA PRASAD, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 4 TO 9)

        This petition is coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE VIVEK

RUSIA passed the following:
                                     ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 200/00955/2021 whereby the same has been dismissed without going into the merits of the case. However, liberty has been granted to the applicants to file a proper and separate original application in the proper form.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the 33 applicants in aforementioned original applicant, 12 applicants have jointly filed a separate application and have been granted the relief by the Tribunal in the light of the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in case of M.Subramaniam vs. Union of India & Ors.in W.P.No. 13225/2010 and the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 3768/2018 in order to maintain parity. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the subsequent original application filed by the applicants, the pleadings and relief were same as pleaded and claimed in the

original application filed earlier.

We do not find any error in the pleadings as well in the relief claimed by the applicants. The intention of the applicants are clear that they wanted the same benefit which as been granted by the High Court of Madras and Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the aforementioned cases. Hence, in our opinion the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the original application.

Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The original application No. 200/00955/2021 is restored. However, the petitioner is directed to delete the names of those applicants who have subsequently filed the original application. For the remaining applicants, the original application be entertained on merits.

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

       (VIVEK RUSIA)                               (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
           JUDGE                                            JUDGE
    vidya


SREEVIDYA
2022.12.02
16:22:01 +05'30'
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter