Superior court remand must be followed on merits; threshold rejection on limitation cannot override an operative direction to hear the case.

A subordinate forum must comply with a superior court's remand or direction to decide a matter on merits and cannot defeat that mandate by rejecting the case at the threshold on an inconsistent limitation objection. Where the High Court had directed disposal of an original application in accordance with law if filed within time, the Tribunal was required to hear both sides and consider the reliefs and grounds on merits. The pendency of connected proceedings before the Supreme Court did not, by itself, extinguish the parties' right to be heard. The impugned order was set aside, the application restored, and the matter remitted for decision in terms of the earlier directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in rejecting the original application as barred by limitation despite the High Court's earlier direction to decide it on merits, and whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted.

Analysis: The earlier order of the High Court had expressly directed that, if the original application was filed within time, it should be disposed of in accordance with law on merits. The Tribunal could not dilute that mandate by refusing admission at the threshold on a limitation objection. Pendency of connected proceedings before the Supreme Court did not, by itself, extinguish the petitioners' right to be heard, particularly when the liberty granted by the High Court remained operative. The Tribunal ought to have examined the reliefs and grounds in the original application after hearing both sides, and if necessary, awaited the outcome of the pending special leave petition instead of rejecting the matter outright.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside, the original application was restored to its original number, and the Tribunal was directed to decide it in terms of the High Court's earlier order after hearing the parties.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merits in accordance with the earlier directions, with liberty to await the Supreme Court's outcome if the issues were found to be substantially similar.

Ratio Decidendi: When a superior court remands or directs disposal of a matter on merits, the subordinate forum must comply with that mandate and cannot defeat it by an inconsistent threshold rejection unless the later course is legally compelled and duly reasoned.

---