Regularisation claim reconsideration requires compliance with prior remand directions; repeated reliance on rejected objections was unsustainable.

The Commercial Taxes authorities could not sustain fresh proceedings that used the same objection earlier rejected by the Tribunal, because the petitioner's claim had already been directed to be reconsidered under the applicable regularisation policy. Reiterating the later Government order showed non-application of mind and disregard of the earlier remand direction. The department's stand was also inconsistent, as it denied the existence of the post while relying on regularisation of similarly placed employees. On these facts, the impugned proceedings and the Tribunal's dismissal order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the earlier direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings of the Commercial Taxes authorities and the Tribunal's order dismissing the application were sustainable when the petitioner's case had earlier been directed to be reconsidered on the basis of the applicable Government orders.

Analysis: The earlier tribunal order had rejected the objection based on the later Government order and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's claim under the earlier regularisation policy. The subsequent proceedings again relied on the same rejected objection, showing non-application of mind and disregard of the earlier direction. The stand of the department was also found inconsistent because it denied the very existence of the post while relying on regularisation of other similarly placed employees. In these circumstances, the impugned proceedings could not be sustained and the matter required fresh consideration by the competent authority.

Conclusion: The proceedings dated 30.10.2012 and the Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2016 were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the earlier tribunal direction.

---