Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (‘CAT’) in O.A.No.021/133/2026.

2. By the impugned order dated 05.02.2026, the CAT dismissed the O.A filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the High Court in W.P.No.25904 of 2000 filed by the petitioner, had set aside an earlier order of the CAT dated 07.06.2020. The CAT accordingly held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the order of the High Court.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

4. The facts placed before the Court indicate that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.25904 of 2000 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant ‘B’ Grade with effect from 05.08.1995, by setting aside the order dated 07.06.2000 passed by the CAT in O.A.No.1029 of 1999 and the order dated 08.09.2000 passed in R.A.No.72 of 2000 in O.A.No.1029 of 1999 insofar as it rejected the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant ‘B’ Grade with effect from 05.08.1995, with all consequential benefits, such as seniority, promotion, arrears of pay and allowances etc.

5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 and another filed W.P.No.19019 of 2000 seeking a declaration that the direction issued by the CAT in its order dated 07.06.2000 in O.A.No.1029 of 1999, directing that the writ petitioner herein be granted promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant ‘A’ with effect from 05.08.1995 instead of 01.02.1996, was arbitrary, unjust and unwarranted.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a Common Order dated 07.03.2022 disposed of both the Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.19019 and 25904 of 2000) holding that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Scientific Assistant ‘B’ prior to 31.07.1995 with all consequential benefits. The Court further directed that the said benefit be granted to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The Court, however, clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to financial benefits arising from such fixation and that the fixation of higher amounts would be only notional. It was further held that the petitioner would be entitled to physical benefits only prospectively from the date of the said order.

7. The facts and the documents placed on record further indicate that, pursuant to the High Court’s order dated 07.03.2022, the Administrative Officer-III (E) of Department of Atomic Energy, Nuclear Fuel Complex, passed a speaking order dated 24.07.2025 holding inter alia that any financial benefit arising before or after retirement would be purely notional in nature if its accrual date was prior to 07.03.2022. The Administrative Officer accordingly held that since the petitioner had already drawn all retiral benefits, including the Retirement Gratuity and Leave Encashment, on the basis of his actual Last Pay Drawn prior to 07.03.2022, the petitioner was not entitled to any other retiral benefits after 07.03.2022. Hence, the grant of revised notional pay fixation, as indicated therein in compliance with the order of the High Court, would not translate into any physical benefit payable to the petitioner with effect from 07.03.2022.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the second O.A (O.A.No.021/133/2026) before the CAT challenging the said order dated 24.07.2025 and seeking consequential benefits.

9. However, the CAT erroneously dismissed the said O.A on the grounds that the order dated 07.06.2000 passed by the CAT had been set aside by the High Court vide order dated. 07.03.2022 in W.P.No.25904 of 2000 and that the CAT has no jurisdiction to examine the order of the High Court.

10. The said approach of the CAT is erroneous. The order dated 24.07.2025, which formed the basis of the second O.A, was passed pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 07.03.2022. Hence, the subject matter and cause of action in the two O.As. were entirely different.

11. Moreover, the second O.A. was directed against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Administrative Officer-III(E), Department of Atomic Energy, Nuclear Fuel Complex, which was not the subject matter of consideration in W.P.No.25904 of 2000. The CAT was, therefore, required to examine the legality of the said order on its own merits and could not have dismissed the O.A. on the ground that the earlier order of the CAT had been set aside by the High Court.

12. For the foregoing reasons, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 and remand the matter to the CAT for fresh consideration and for a decision on the merits.

13. W.P.No.31590 of 2026 is accordingly allowed and disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the CAT in O.A.No.021/133/2026 and remanding the matter to the CAT for fresh consideration and for a decision on the merits. All connected applications shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.