Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Ravichandran vs Posts on 8 November, 2023
B 1 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH in CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH, CHENNAI ei MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.310/00463/2021 ; IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.310/00927/2021 ORDER RESERVED ON : 02.11.2023 DATE OF ORDER : 08,11.2023 HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA . MEMBER(J) l. Shri R.Ravichandran, Aged 61 years, S/o V.Ramasamy, No.33, Chellam Nagar, 5" Street, Kudal Nagar, Madurai 625018. 2. Shri A.Arumugam, 'S/o L.Srinivasan, Aged 61 years, No.2407, Ashok Nagar, 3" Street, Karaikudi -630002, MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNA! BENCH 3. Ms. V.Visveswari, D/o Sri 8. Veluchamy, Aged 59 years, No.2407, Ashok Nagar, 3™ Cross, Karaikudi 630002. 4. Shri P.Karuppiah, S/o A.Palani, _ Aged 61 years, No.4, Postal Quarters, Alagappapuram, Karaikudi-3. 5. Smt. T.Rajeswari, W/o C.K.Shiva Shanmugam, Aged 61 years, No. 19C, N.G.Naidu Colony, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625002. 6. Shri A. Vincent Amalraj, S/o V.J.Arockiasamy, Aged 60 years, No.2/327, Venmanisalai, YP. Chinthan Nagar, Vedupuliyankulam, Tirunagar, Madurai -625006. 3 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No,927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 7. Shri V. Josep Arulraj, S/o 8.Ubagarasamy, Aged 63 years, * Annai Illam, No.1-5-37, Sanjevi Nagar Extention, Anaiyur Post, Madurai 625017. 8. Shri P.Rajendran, S/o M.Palanichamy, Aged 61 years, No.7/566, 1* Street, Annaik amatchi Nagar, Thottanuthu, Dindigul. 9, Shri C.Muniyandi, S/o Chinnakannu, Aged 58 years, No.18, 743/1A, Kamatchi Nagar, Malapatii Road, Thottanuthu Post, Dindigul 624005. 10.Shri A.Abul Asan Ali, S/o M.S.Abdul Samath, Aged 63 years, Residing at 11, Samlar Lane, Kasimar Street, Madurai -625001. O 4 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No,927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 11.Smt.M.Santhi [langodiyal, W/o R.Jeyachandramohan, Aged 60 years, No.17/14, 1A/2 Building Society Street, Batlagundu -624202. 12.Shri M.Selvanathan, S/o P.Muthiah, Aged 63 years, Annai Iam, No.1/196-1, Pandi Nagan, 5" Street, Surveyor Colony, Madurai -625009. 13.Smt.S.Rajesweri, W/o E.Murugesan, Aged 62 years, | No.4/33, Vagayadi Uaminigar Kovil Street, Kottar-629002. 14.Smt. Jeyaselvi Simon, W/o B.Monsingh, Aged 61 years, No.F2, Amman Block, Thathuchasiyar Garden, Mambalasalai, Tiruchi -625005. DB ; MA No.463/2021 IN OA No,927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 15.Smt.P.Revathi, W/o A.Karunakaran, Aged 56 years, No.1-16-30B, Aringar Street, Gandhi Nagar, Batlagundu. 16.Shri S.Murugiah, S/o S.Sundararaj, Aged 65 years, No.21, Ramasamy Kovil Street, Kottaiyur, Kilapavur 627806. 17.Shri E.S.Karupusamy, S/o Adayappa Konar, Aged 61 years, No.14, Ashokar Street, Vellalore (PO), Coimbatore-641111. 18.Smt. N.Sundandirakumari, W/o S.T.Ranganathan, Aged 61 years, No.60/128, Tiruvallur Street, Kuttinayakar Layout, Uppilipalayam PO, Coimbatore -641005. 6 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 19.Shri S.Mohanraj, S/o $.Sivasamy, Aged 61 years, C.I. SD Nagar I, K.S.Gardens, Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore-641025, 20.Shri Y.Natarajan, S/o K.N. Yegnesweran, Aged 63 years, Site No.13, Kamalam Nivas, Sowdambiga Nagar Extension, Coimbatore -641025, 21.Ms. V.Ganesan, D/o S.Veluchamy, Aged 61 years, No.15, Annamanagar, V.K.Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641004. 22.Shri D.Dominic, S/o A.Davararaj, Aged 58 years, No.B-1, Samudra Apartments, Periyar Nagar Street, No.6, Vadavalli, Coimbatore -641041. 7 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 23.Smt..Sulochana, W/o P.Subramanian, Aged 62 years, Sivasakthi Ilam, No.34, Velanthavalam Road, Othakalmandapam, Coimbatore-641032. 24.Shri M.Sampath, S/o M.Munusamy, Age 61 years, No.4/166, Kadayanallur, Erode 638008. 25. Shri J.Shankar, S/o S.Jayaraman, Aged 62 years, Residing at GF3, Balaji Appartment, Coimbatore -641001. 26.Shri G.Kokilambal, W/o Muralidharan, Aged 62 years, No.2/538B, SM Castle, PWD Colony, Sathyanagar, Oddapathy, Thakkampathy PO, Dharmapuri -636705, Beppo eS Sep eR I Be RR RE PS ES eee -- -------- ene. Seep ee aS te £} 8 MA No,463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 27.Smt V.Aruchamy, S/o R.Vellingin, S. Giri, Aged 62 years, No.4, Kabbiniya Gounder Layout, Maniakaram Palayam, Ganapathy (PO), Coimbatore -641006. 28.Shri R.Nagarajan, S/o Ranga Asari, Aged 62 years, No.109, Srinivasa Nagar, Avaram Palayam, Ganapathy Post, Coimbatore 641006. 29.Shri T.Livingstone Theodre, S/o D.S.Theophilus Tathnasamy, Aged 61 years, No.7/14, Krishna Nagar Extension, Sugunapuram Post, Coimbatore-641008. 30.Shri K.Rabindraraj, S/o R.Krishna Raj, Aged 63 years, No.9/57-1, Parasakthi Nagar, Dadagapatti, Salem-6. 3 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 31.Shri S.Panneerselvam, Aged 61 years, S/o M.Sengodan, 2™ Pandiyan Street, Gorimedu, Salem -636008. 32.Shri A.Jeevarathinam, S/o P.K.Annamalai, Aged 61 years, No.51, CMR Nagar, Puthumariamman Kovil Post, Ponnamapet, Salem -636003. 33.Smt S.Sathya, W/o D.Rajagopal, Aged 56 years, No.45/1, Queen Circle, Mahendrapuri, Salem -636008. 34.Shri S.Ganesan, S/o Sellappan, Aged 61 years, Tinevagoundanur, Salem -636005. 10 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 35.Shri S. Viswanathan, S/o U.K.Subramaniyam, Aged 60 years, No.3, Meenakshi Nagar, 1° Street, Sivalingapuram, Ondipudur, Coimbatore -641016. 36.Smt.M.Prema, W/o Seeniappan, Aged 61 years, No.11/78, Ramasamy Layout, - Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641004. 37.Smt. C.Nirmala, W/o P.Ramasamy, Aged 64 years, No.19,Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Coimbatore -641017, 38.Shri K.Ramasamy, S/o K.Kaliappan, Aged 59 years, No.108, Chinnasamy Nagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641006. ii MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 39.Smt.D.Kala, W/o P.Sairam, Aged 57 years, No.104, KTVR Grandeur, Thavasi Nagar, Kovilmedu, Velandipalayam, Coimbatore -641025. 40.Smt.P.Rajamani, W/o G.Karunanihi, Aged 62 years, No.106A, Avaram Palayam Road, Jagannatha Puram, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-4. 4] Shri Chandra Gandhi, S/o A.S.Balasubramaniam, Age 61 years, No.198, 1* Street, Saradambak, Karumathampatti -641658. 42.Smt.M.Baby, W/o J.John Boptist, Aged 61 years, No.5, K.V.N layout, 2" Street, Souripalayam, Coimbatore-641028. 12 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 43.Smt.K.Santhi, W/o A.Pannerselvam, Aged 58 years, No.111, Kannappa Gounder Street, Rathnapuri, Coimbatore -641027. 44 Shri R.Emmanuel, S/o K.S.Raju, Aged 63 years, No.19/73, Cauvery Nagar, Metturdam-1. 45.Smt.D.Jayanthi, W/o K.Sundarajan, Aged 61 years, No.58, Ramanuja Nagar, Uppilipalayam PO, Coimbatore 641015. 46.Smt.D.Pankajam, W/o S.Thiruvenkatasamy, Aged 59 years, No.7, Sivanagar-2, Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore 641015. 13 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 47.Smt.C.S.Padmini, W/o S.N.Srinivasan, Aged 57 years, C-Block, 76, Dakshayani Apartments, Thondamuthur Road, Coimbatore-641046. 48.Shri K.Ramamurthy, S/o P.N.Krishnasamy, Aged 61 years, No.36, Kulanthayappa Nagar, Palayakkadu, Tirupur-641601. 49.Smt.R.Rajalakshmi, D/o S.Radhakrishnan, Aged 62 years, _ Vedapatti, Coimbatore-641007. 30.Smt.M.Tamilselvi, W/o A.Govindaraj, Aged 62 years, No.11/12, SKV Employees Colony, Kamachipuram, Ondipurdur (PO), Coimbatore-641016. 14 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 51.Smt.V.Thangamani, W/o S.Ganesan, Aged 63 years, No.9, Anugraha Siddivinayakar Colony, Coimbatore -641041. 52.Shri G.Unnikrishnan, S/o V.P.Gopalakrishnan, Aged 61 years, No.16/10A-1, Auto Nagar, 1* Cross, 3 Street, Edayaarpalayam, Coimbatore-641025. 53.Shri S.Ramesh, S/o V.Subramaniyam, Aged 62 years, No.28/2, KVR Nagar, 2™ Street, Karuvam Palayam, Tirupur -641604. 54.Smt.M.Prema, W/o R.Jeyabalakrishnan, Aged 62 years, No.1746, Valluvar Nagar, Kurinji Street, West Extension Burma Colony, Karaikudi 630002. 15 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 55.Shri K.Murugesan, Aged 61 years, No.20, Nataraj Nagar, No.2, Visweswaraiah Street, Kk.K.Pudur, Coimbatore-641038. 56.Smt.S.Gitanjali, W/o S.Kanagaraj, Aged 62 years, No.9, Palanisamy, Konar Street, K.K.Pudur, Coimbatore-641038. 57. Shri B.Sugumar, S/o P.Balakrishnan, Aged 59 years, No.83, Lakshmi Garden, Thindal, Erode-638012. 58.Smt.V. Vedavalli, W/o P.Govindasamy, Aged 57 years, No.27/1, MGR Nagar, Kannan Kurichi Main Road, Salem -636008, -~ " Fors Sete TE TP SL ee er tinea te epee 16 MA No.463/2021 IN GA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 59.Smt.V .Rajeswari, _ W/o P.Selvaraj, Aged 58 years, Second Floor, Vinayaka Flat, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallore, Coimbatore-5, -60.Smt.S.R.Girija, W/o P.M.Chandramohan, Aged 63 years, S.0.B. Garghi House, E.B. Nagar, Vaikkalmedu, Erode -638002. 61.Shri P.Stanely, S/o P.Ponnuswamy, Aged 62 years, New No.9, Old No.26C, Annai Indra Nagar, Chokkampududur, Coimbatore-641039. 62.Shri S.Arumugavelan, S/o V.Sidanu, Aged 61 years, No.R.C.Geetham Apartments, Flat-F, Srinivasa nagar, 7™ Cross Street, Kolathur, Chennai-99, .... Applicants 17 . MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH (By Advocate Mr.S.Ramaswamy Rajarajan) Vs. 1. The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-- 110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai -600002. 3. The Superintendent, RMS, CB Division, Coimbatore-641001, 4.The Senior Superintendent, SRM, MA Division, Madurai -625001. 5.The Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Thiruchirappali Division, Thiruchirappali -620001. .. Respondents (By SCGSC, Shri Su.Srinivasan) 18 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No0,927/2021/CAT/CHENNA! BENCH ORDER Per: Justice S.Sujatha ........... Member(J)
As 3©° MEMBER In terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chairman under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) nominating me as third Member to hear MA No.463/2021 in OA No.927/2021, the matter has been listed for hearing today.
2. MA No.310/463/2021 has been filed by the applicants under Rule 4(5)(a}) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 ('Rules' for short} seeking permission for the 62 applicants to join together and file a single application before this Tribunal. Objections have been filed by the respondents to the said MA submitting that the applicants in the main OA No.927/2021 had worked/working in different Divisions and under Regions covering over ali the State and the Service records are maintained in different Head Offices located in their respective Divisions and Regions. It is further submitted that the date of joining and date of absorption/appointment/retirement vary from 19 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No,927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH each other amongst the applicants. | The department finds it difficult and more complicated to file a single reply since the applicants have worked/working in various Divisions under different Regions and it would be difficult to collect the details of applicants individually, more particularly, in the absence of such particulars provided in the OA.
3, Hon'ble Judicial Member has pronounced the order on 10.03.2023 and the operative portion of the order reads thus:
"8, In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the MA filed by the 62 applicants praying to permit them to join together and file a single OA is rejected. Consequently, the OA stands closed with liberty to the applicants to file separate OAs in accordance with law."
4, Hon'ble Administrative Member has pronounced the order separately on 10.03.2023 and the operative portion of the said order reads thus:
"14, In view of the foregoing discussions, MA 463/2021 for joining the 62 applicants together is allowed.
i exes ae Stor 20 MA No.463/2027 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNA! BENCH 15, Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Shri Su. Srinivasan, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the respondents, who receives notice for the respondents shall file counter within 6 weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within 3 weeks thereafter. Case be listed before the Registrar's Court on 15,06,2022."
5. Learned Counsel Shri $.Ramaswamy Rajarajan appearing for the applicants inviting the attention of the Bench to Rule 4{5)(a) of the Rules submitted that the applicants may be permitted to file single application having regard to the cause and nature of the case for that they have common interest in the matter, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7773/2009 dated 30.07.2010. As the applicants herein are similarly situated persons like respondents in the said Civil Appeal No.7773/2009, regularising the services of the applicants, who had worked as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) along with the respondents in Civil Appeal No.7773/2009 against the short term/leave vacancies with effect from their date of appointment protecting their pay and pensionary benefits without any arrears is necessary.
Thus all the 62 applicants placed in a similar boat, had earlier filed 21 .
MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNA! BENCH OA No.408/2014 before this Tribunal with a prayer to regularise 'Ki ais frag Pe NWS their services from the date of initial appointment and also with a s PFs jon e! 8 & further prayer to extend the benefit given by CAT, Mumabi Bench irri in OA No.719/1996, which came to be disposed of by this Tribunal on 04.08.2015 directing the respondents to pay salary and allowances of Postal Assistants to the applicants therein, till their regularisation. Being aggrieved, the department filed Writ Petition No.34944 and 33298/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the same came to be dismissed. Further the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7773/2009. That being the position, considering the scope of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules, the Hon'ble Administrative Member has allowed the MA filed by the applicants seeking permission to join together to file a single application. The same deserves to be concurred by the third Member.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Counsel Shri Su. Srinivasan representing the respondents Poet Toa
--
22MA No.463/2021 IN GA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNA BENCH submitted that 62 applicants have filed MA seeking permission to join together to file a single application. No particulars of the engagement/appointment/absorption/retirement in the Post Office/Division in which the applicants are working/worked is furnished. The date of joining and service particulars of the applicant vary from each other and as such it would be difficult to file common reply in the OA. Placing reliance on the order passed by the CAT, Chennai Bench in OA No.693/2021, learned Counsel submitted that no single application is maintainable and a direction may be issued to the applicants to file separate applications individually to render justice, concurring with the order passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Member,
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record,
8. The point that arises for my consideration is, Whether MA No.463/2021 filed by the applicants seeking permission to join together and file a single application is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case?
@ a : 23 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH 9, Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules reads thus:
"(5)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) to (3), the Tribunal may permit more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause and the nature of relief prayed for, that they have a common interest in the matter."
10. The present OA has been filed by 62 applicants jointly. Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules confers power on the Tribunal to permit more than one person to join together and file a single application subject to. the condition that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the cause and the nature of relief prayed for, that they have a common interest in the matter. The cause herein, certainly varies with respect to the particulars of the engagement/appointment/ absorption and the Post Office/Division in which the applicants 'have worked/working. Unless these particulars are made available in the OA, it would be difficult for the respondents to file common reply with respect to all the applicants. Even on the legal principle, if the matter is covered by judicial pronouncements, the eos ¢
--
24MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH implementation of the orders passed by this Tribunal would be difficult to the department to implement/comply with it, unless the particulars of the individual applicant is available on record. As could be seen, the applicants residential addresses are provided in the cause title to the OA, no official addresses of the applicants are given, In terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules, allowing of single application not being automatic and in the absence of the relevant service particulars relating to each applicant not being available, claiming common relief is not maintainable. With great respect, I disagree with the order pronounced by the Hon'ble Administrative Member, wherein reference has been made to Order-1 Rule 8 of the CPC and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Section 22 of the Act specifically deals with the powers of Tribunals. In Sub Section (3) of Section 22, it has been enumerated under what circumstances, for the purpose of discharging the functions under the Act, the Tribunal has the powers as are vested 25 MA No.463/2021 IN OA No.927/2021/CAT/CHENNAI BENCH in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, while trying a suit. Considering of the single application does not come within the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (i) therein.
No doubt the power to permit a single application is vested with the Tribunal under Rule 4(5){a) of the Rules in respect of more than one person to join together, the said power has to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the same is not automatic. No mathematical precision or hard and fast rule can be laid down. Such satisfaction of the Tribunal as enumerated in Rule 4(5)(a) depends on facts and circumstances of each case. At present, we are not dealing with the merits of the matter. The issue is now confined to the maintainability of the single application. Orders relied upon by the applicant deals with the merits of the case.
12. In the background of the case as discussed above and having regard to the order passed in MA No.319/2021 in OA No.693/2021 referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents, I concur with the decision taken by the Hon'ble Judicial Member.
@ 1 MA 463/2021 & OA 927/2021 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH MA No. 463/2023 in & OA NO.927/2021 dh Dated the Fy) day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T. JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. R.Ravichandran,
2. A.Arumugam, 3, V.Visveswari, 4, P,Karuppiah,
5. T.Rajeswari,
6. A.Vincent Amalraj,
7. VJoseph Arulraj,
8. P,Rajendran, 9, C.Muniyandi, 10, A.Abul Asan Ali, Ti. M.Santhi Llangodiyal,
12. M.Selvanathan,
13. 5.Rajeswerl,
14. Jeyaselvi Simon,
15. P,Revathi, 16, S.Murugiah,
17. E.S.Karupusamy,
18. | N.Sudandirakumari,
19. S.Mohanraj,
20. Y.Natarajan, 71, V.Ganesan,
22. D.Dominic,
23. K.Sulochana, 24, M.Sampath,
25. j.Sankar,
26. G.Kokilambal, 2/. V.Aruchamy, 28,
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. 36,
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43. 44,
45.
46.
47.
48. 49,
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56. of.
58.
59.
60. 61,
62. By Advocate. M/s S. Ramaswamyrajarajan R.Nagarajan, T.Livingstone Theodre, K.Rabindraraj, S.Panneerselvarm, A.Jeevarathinam, S.Sathya, S.Ganesan, 5S, Viswanathan, M.Prema, C.Nirmala, K.Ramasamy, D.Kala, P.Rajamani, M.Chandra Gandhi, M.Baby, K.Santhi, R.Emmanuel, D.Jayanthi, D.Pankajam, C.S.Padmini, K.Ramamurthy, R.Rajalakshmi, M.Tamilselvi, V.Thangamani, G.Unnikrishnan, S.Ramesh, M.Prema, K.Murugesan, S.Gitanjali, B.Sugumar, V.Vedavaili, V.Rajeswari,
5.R.Girija, P.Stanely.
S.Arumugavelan.
bo MA 463/2021 & OA 927/2021 .. Applicants ™ @® Vs. Union of India rep by,
1.The Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 1.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai 600002.
3.The Superintendent, RMS, CB Division, Coimbatore 641001.
4.The Senior Superintendent, SRM, MA Division, Madural 625001.
5.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruchirapalli Division, Tiruchirapalli 620001, By Advocate Mr, Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC MA 463/2021 & OA 927/2021 . .Respondents 4 MA 463/2021 & OA 927/2021 ORDER (Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) Heard both sides.
2, Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the applicants are similarly situated and claiming the same relief. Hence, they have filed a single OA along with this Miscellaneous Application for joining together,
3. On the other hand, respondents have filed their counter affidavit and raised the objection pointing out that in a similar case, i.e., in MA No. 319 of 2021 in OA 693 of 2021 this Tribunal vide order dt. 12.08.2021 rejected the application for joining together and the averment to the said fact made in the counter reply has been brought to the notice by the learned counsel for respondents. The order reads thus :
"The respondents has to ascertain the details such as date of appointment, date of absorption etc which have to gone into separately as it may not be same to all the applicants, Counter is also to be filed In respect of individial applicants. Hence, it is appropriate for the applicants to file separate OAs.
With the above observation, the MA 319 of 2021 for joining Lhe applicants together is rejected. Consequently, OA No. 693 of 2021 stands closed with liberty to the applicants to file separate OAs in accordance with law."
4, Learned counsel for respondents has also submitted that the applicants have also not given the details of their engagement/appointment/absorption and the post office in which they are working or worked. The application is net maintainable, as it does not give details of their service. The verification of date of joining and date of absorption/appointment vary from each applicants, herein ard finding, checking of their records would consume enormous time and also it would be difficult to file common reply in the OA and the applicants wantonly, deliberately had filed this single OA for their convenience but would compel the administration with huge task of gathering details by making enquiry in various "ffices with regard to their initial 71% 5 MA 463/202] & OA 927/202 engagement and appointment/absorption etc since the applicants are working in various Divisions under different Regions and also finding it difficult to collect the details of the Individuals. It Is also submitted that few of the applicants have already superannuated from service from different post offices. It is also submitted that the order passed by this Bench is applicable to the Instant application also.
5. It is to be noted that in the judicial discipline, It is necessary to follow the earlier decisions of this Tribunal of equal strength of the Bench. In the said circumstances, law has been settled and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has Oe observed the same in the matter of State of Orissa and others Vs. Bhagaban Sarangi and others and the same has been strictly followed by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as co-ordinate Benches and even this Bench. It is to be noted that contrary view cannot be taken by the Bench of equal strength.
6. Therefore, we are of the view that this Bench cannot take a contrary view. Hence, by observing that the present OA has been filed by 62 applicants jointly, however, as per the requirement of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for the consideration of cases for giving justice, it is necessary that the application be accompanied by such documents ie., appointment orders, requiarisation orders as well as details of place of posting and service rendered by the applicants individually. Since, no details whatsoever have been furnished in the application, therefore, while dealing with the matter for settling the issue for grant of benefit claimed by the applicants, it is necessary for the applicants individually to give clear averment by way of specific pleadings and also to make specific grounds for seeking the said similar benefit for which they are claiming as they are '
9) al 6 MA 463/2021 & OA 927/2021 entitled as well as to prove that the order passed by the respodents Is against the law.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the MA filed by the 62 applicants praying to permit them to join together and file a single OA is rejected. Consequently, the OA stands closed with liberty to the applicants to file separate OAs In accordance with law.
/ i