A.M. Kapadia, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, petitioners Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecom and Chief General Manager, Telecom, Rajasthan Circle have challenged impugned order dated 23.02.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur by which the learned Tribunal passed the following order : The OA is accordingly allowed with the direction to the respondents that the DPC recommendations permitting the applicant to cross the EB with effect from June, 1984 be implemented and the applicant be allowed refixation of his pay in the new pay scales as recommended by the 4th Pay Commission after allowing increments for the years 1984 and 1985 and be further allowed normal increments as and when due till 29.3.1988 and thereafter, as per the penalty imposed, withhold the increment which fell due after 29.3.1988.
(2.) THE main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that for the purpose of relief of granting "cross Efficiency Bar", earlier a petition was filed by the respondent -applicant and the same was registered as OA No. 204/ 1989 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on 01.11.1991, in which, it was claimed by the respondent - applicant that he was due to cross the Efficiency Bar on 08.06.1982; but, it has not been granted illegally by the department. The learned Tribunal, however, after considering all aspects of the matter, dismissed the said OA vide judgment dated 01.11.1991. Again, in the year 1997, OA No. 133/1997 was filed, in which, impugned judgment dated 23..02.1999 was delivered and the OA filed by the respondent -applicant has been allowed by the Tribunal in which it has been ordered that the DPC recommendation permitting the applicant to cross the EB with effect from June, 1984 be implemented and the applicant be allowed refixation of his pay in the new pay scales as recommended by the 4th Pay Commission after allowing increments for the years 1984 and 1985. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that while adjudicating the subsequent OA No. 133/1997 in which the impugned judgment has been delivered on 23.02.1999, adjudication made in the earlier OA vide judgment dated 01.11.1991 was not even considered. Further, it is submitted that the relevant provisions of law and office memorandums have not been considered at the time of deciding the subsequent OA in which judgment impugned has been passed, therefore, the principle of res judicata applies. Thus the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent -applicant submitted that the order impugned in this writ petition is perfectly in accordance with law, therefore, no interference is called for and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) WE have perused the impugned judgment.;