IMPORTANT POINT
J & K High Court erred in law in directly entertaining the writ petitions concerning service matters of the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as these matters come under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Headnote:Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 -Sections 1(2)(a), 14(1)(b)(iii), item 34 in Schedule u/s 14(2)-Whether the Act applies to all categories of Central Govt. servants and others placed to work in the State of J & K as well? (Yes)-Whether CAT has jurisdiction in respect of service matters of the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya located in J & K? (Yes, in view of decision of Constitution Bench 1997(3) SCC 261) -J & K High Court directly entertaining writ petitions regarding service matters of Kendriya Vidyalaya and refused to transfer it to CAT-Whether correct? (No)-Appeals allowed (Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 370 -J & K Constitution-Sections 103 and 104).
       Per Phukan, J.-
       Held (referring to Section 1(2)(a) of Act) : In view of the above legal provision, we hold that the Act applies to all categories of central government servants and others posted to work in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as well. (Para 8)
       Held further (relying on 1997(3) SCC 261) : The Constitution Bench of this Court has clearly held that Tribunals set up under the Act shall continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted . It was further held that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Court even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislation (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. In view of the clear pronouncement of this Court, the High Court erred in law in directly entertaining the writ petitions concerning service matters of the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya as these matters come under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. We, therefore, hold that the High Court committed an error by declining to transfer the writ petition to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, we set aside the impugned orders and direct the High Court to transfer both the writ petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench which may, in its turn, make over the case to the circuit bench in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for disposal in accordance with law. (Paras 12 & 13)
       In the result both the appeals are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. (Para 15)
       [Per P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-
        Though concurring with Phukan, J., (Para 16) but explaining and commenting on (Paras 18 and 20) Kuldip Khud case 1994 SLJ 287A (J & K FB).

JUDGMENT

Phukan, J.-In these two appeals by special leave, two orders of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu have been assailed. By the impugned orders the High Court rejected two applications filed by the appellants for transfer of the writ petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. As the points involved are the same, they were heard together and by this judgment both the appeals are disposed of.

2. The appellants are the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short Kendriya Vidyalaya ) and its officials. The respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 5021 of 2001 and the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5448 of 2000 are the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and as some dispute arose regarding their service conditions, they filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for adjudication. In the above two writ petitions the Kendriya Vidyalaya filed two separate applications for transfer of the writ petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short the Act ) the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the disputes. By the impugned orders, both the applications were dismissed.

3. By order dated January 24, 2002, this Court after hearing the counsels for the parties issued notice to the learned Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The learned Advocate General did not respond. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General has appeared on behalf of the learned Attorney General to assist this Court.

4. The High Court relying on a Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Kuldip Khud vs. Masud Ahmad Chodhry & Others [1994 JKLR 25] held that the writ court has jurisdiction to decide service disputes of the present nature and, therefore, rejected the prayer for transfer holding that the writ petitions were maintainable. The High Court extracted the following paragraph from the judgement of the Full Bench:

We have already indicated that the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 though extends to whole of India, would still not affect the constitutional jurisdiction of this court in entertaining the writ petitions concerning the service matters of the employees of the Central Government. Applicability of the Act is different than the destruction of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court by the Act. While the employees of the central government etc. posted in the state of Jammu & Kashmir may have been provided in respect of service matters, they still retain the choice to approach this court under section 103 of the State constitution by filing a writ petition and praying for an appropriate writ order or direction for the redressal of their grievances. The Tribunal in these circumstances will be an additional or alternative forum and not an exclusive forum."

5. Mr. Altaf Ahmed has made the following submissions:-

(1) In view of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act, the Act extends to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and as the respondents are employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, which is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act and controlled by the Government of India, such disputes regarding service matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2) According to Mr. Ahmed though the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 103 of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution has wide power, but in view of the restraint imposed by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others [1997 (3) SCC 261], High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition.

6. Mr. Gaurishankar, learned senior counsel and Mr. Rajappa and Mr. Kapur, learned counsels appearing for the appellants have adopted the submissions of Mr. Altaf Ahmed. In reply Mr. B.D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 330

IMPORTANT POINTJ & K High Court erred in law in directly entertaining the writ petitions concerning service matters of the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as these matters come under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
J & K High Court erred in law in directly entertaining the writ petitions concerning service matters of the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as these matters come under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.