Order : 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 24.12.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the O.A. No.304/2013 titled as Jamuna Prasad versus Union of India & Ors. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner in the year 1980 joined the department of Atomic Energy as Scientific Assistant ‘B’. On 01.02.2001, petitioner was promoted to post of Scientific Officer ‘E’. The petitioner was not given promotion to the post of Scientific Officer ‘F’. The representation of the petitioner raising a grievance for not granting promotion to the post of Scientific Officer ‘F’ was rejected as the petitioner was not eligible due to adverse ACRs. On 06.09.2010, the adverse ACRs for the period from 01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 were communicated to the petitioner. The representation dated 29.09.2010 filed by the petitioner was rejected on 16.11.2010. Aggrieved of the rejection of the representation, the petitioner filed an appeal which was not being decided and petitioner filed OA No.222 of 2012 before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 17.04.2012, the appellate authorities directed to decide the appeal within three months of the receipt of the order. The appeal was rejected on 01.01.2013. The OA No.304/2013 was filed challenging the appellate order dated 01.01.2013 and the order rejecting the representation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appellate order dated 01.01.2013 was never under challenge in the earlier litigation. The rejection of the representation and the appellate order was passed after communication to the adverse remarks in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal in OA No.15/2022. 4. As per contra, the issue in both the litigations was with regard to challenge to the adverse ACR entries. 5. The prerequisite for applying res judicata was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Hanifa (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. reported in (1976) 4 SCC 780 :- “7. *** *** *** it may be necessary to mention that before a plea of res judicata can be given effect, the following conditions must be proved- (1) that the litigating parties must be the same; (2) that the subject-matter of the suit also must be identical; (3) that the matter must be finally decided between the parties; and (4) that the suit must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.” 6. That the earlier OA filed by the petitioner was during pendency of an appeal filed against the order rejecting the representation. The Tribunal on 17.04.2012 issued directions to the appellate authority to decide the appeal within three months from the receipt of the order. After dismissal of the appeal, OA No.304/2013 was filed. The Tribunal erred in invoking res judicata for dismissing the OA No.304/2013, as the subject matter in the earlier OA and the present OA were different. The challenge to the impugned orders in OA No.304/2013 was not subject matter of earlier litigation and there arose no occasion for Tribunal to adjudicate the merits of issues now raised, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the OA on res judicata. 7. The impugned order dismissing the O.A. No.304/2013 is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the OA afresh in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8. The petition is allowed. 9. Since we have set aside the two orders passed by the Tribunal, and the cost imposed is also quashed. 10. The petitioner shall be at liberty to make a prayer before the Tribunal for an expeditious disposal of the OA. There is no doubt in eventuality of prayer being made same shall be considered in accordance with law taking into consideration that the petitioner is a senior citizen.