Pranesh Lal Chakma vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING on 14 October 2026

ORDER

GH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

o. 158/2025 has been filed by the a tion of delay of 676 days in filing the O the applicant, cause of action for f n arose on 15.03.2022, the date on w ation was published. Thereafter, a entations before the authority. Tho such consideration, but no result. d compelling circumstances, he co bunal with the period of limitation. So d. 2025 with

& PGT, ondents napati 14.10.2026 applicant O.A. filing the which the applicant ough, he Due to ould not delay of Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

3. We have carefully perused the condonation application alongside the written objections filed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

4. Upon a thorough examination of the explanation provided by the applicant regarding his unavoidable and compelling obstacles, this Tribunal is fully satisfied that the contentions made by the applicant for the condonation of delay are legally sustainable, reasonable, and convincing. Substantive justice must always take precedence over procedural technicalities when an employee acts in good faith.

5. In view of the above, the M.A. No. 158/2025 is allowed. The delay of 676 days in filing the Original Application is hereby condoned.

6. By this O.A. No. 234/2025, applicant makes a prayer for quashing of the Notification dated 15.03.2022 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India and for a direction upon the respondents to give him promotion from Tripura Civil Service Cadre (TCS) to Indian Administrative

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Service (IAS) with all other consequential service benefit with retrospective effect.

7. At the outset of the final arguments, Sri P. Maishan, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the subject matter of the present application is fully covered by earlier decisions of this Tribunal. The learned counsel pointed out that this Tribunal, dealing with identical service facts and legal questions, has already adjudicated the issue and passed final orders in the following cases: O.A. No. 041/00171/2020 dated 09.04.2021 (Karak Baran Choudhury Vs. Union of India and Ors.)

O.A. No. 041/00236/2023 dated 18.03.2025 (Sri Rajendra Kr. Noatia Vs. Union of India and Ors.)

Based on the principle of judicial consistency and parity, the learned counsel prayed for a similar direction to be issued in the case of the present applicant, as similarly situated employees cannot be meted out differential treatment by a model employer.

8. The respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 4 have filed their respective written statement. They submits that the eligibility list was prepared on the basis of the finally published seniority

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

list of Tripura Civil Service Senior Selection Grade as on 01.01.2015 and Tripura Civil Service Grade-I (Selection Grade) as on 01.01.2015, which included the name of the applicant. As per the said seniority list, applicant was placed at Sl. No. 38 in the TCS Senior Selection Grade, and his name appeared at Sl. No. 7 in the eligibility list prepared for the purpose of consideration. As per the respondents, inclusion in the eligibility list does not confer any right to promotion. Further, though applicant was recommended in the Selection Committee Meeting held on 08.02.2022, however, he had not been appointed to the post of IAS vide Notification dated 15.03.2022.

9. While the respondents did not dispute the existence or finality of the binding orders passed in Karak Baran Choudhury (Supra) and Sri Rajendra Kr. Noatia (Supra), they contended that the extension of any consequential financial or service benefits remains subject to individual data verification and verification of the applicant's service eligibility records by the competent administrative authorities.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

10. We have heard both parties at length and examined the records alongside the orders relied upon by the applicant.

11. The doctrine of binding judicial precedent and parity is firmly rooted in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When a core legal question or service anomaly has been thoroughly reviewed and settled by a court or tribunal for a specific set of employees, it becomes the administrative duty of the department to extend identical benefits to all similarly situated staff.

12. Upon reviewing the pleadings, this Tribunal finds that the applicant’s case is factually and legally aligned with the parameters evaluated in Karak Barman (supra) and Rajendra Kr. Noatia (supra). Consequently, the applicant is fully entitled to the benefit of judicial consistency. A prolonged examination of the merits is unnecessary, and a directive for factual verification and equal extension of relief is fully warranted.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

13. In view of the settled position of law and the explicit parity established by the coordinate orders, this Original Application is disposed of. The respondent authorities are directed to examine the claims of the present applicant in light of the final orders passed by this Tribunal in Karak Barman (supra) and Rajendra Kr. Noatia (supra). Upon verifying that the applicant is similarly situated to the individuals protected under the aforementioned precedents, the respondents shall grant the exact same benefits and directions to the present applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event that the competent authority finds any individual component of the applicant’s claim inadmissible, a comprehensive, detailed speaking order explicitly clarifying the reasons for such exclusion shall be issued within the same timeline. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY