2002(5) Supreme 64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
S. Rajendra Babu and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
Durgadas Purkyastha -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 552 of 2001
Decided on 22-7-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Parikh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General for India, Ajit S. Bhasme, P. Parmeshwaran, Sanjay K. Visen, Manoj K. Mishra, Advocates.
Held : The provision cannot be assailed on the ground of arbitrariness having the effect of jeopardising the security of tenure of public servants beyond reasonable limits. (Para 7)
(Under Section 8) an option is reserved to the Government to reappoint a member on the expiry of the term beyond the first term of five years, the outer limit being that he should be within the age of sixty five years in case of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and sixty two years in case of other Members. Thus, it would not be in every case that the Government would put an end to the term of office at the end of five years and such Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Member would become eligible for re-appointment for another period of five years after consideration by a Committee headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court and two other Members, one of whom will be the Chairman of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we do not think that the provisions now made will in any way dilute the effect of or are contrary to the observations made by this Court in Sampath Kumar etc. case. (Para 9)
In B. Ramanjini & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2002(4) Scale 197, the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 21329/97 (R.V. Mallikarjuna vs. Union of India) is reserved and it is held that the direction issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was totally uncalled for and the High Court ought not to have made an order of the nature in question. In the light of what we have stated above, it is unnecessary to consider other contentions urged by the parties. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (Paras 10 & 11)
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.-By an order made on August 30, 1996 the Government of India appointed the petitioner, who was District and Sessions Judge in West Tripura, Agartala, as a Judicial Member in the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ]. It was indicated in the said order that the appointment of the petitioner will be for a period of five years from the date of joining or till he attains the age of sixty two years whichever is earlier. The petitioner made a representation that he is eligible for re-appointment after expiry of the term of five years until he attains the age of sixty two years as has been indicated by this Court in Sampath Kumar etc. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1987(1) SCR 435. The Department of Personnel informed the petitioner of the amended provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] to the effect that a person whose term has expired will be eligible for consideration for re-appointment.
2. On 22.3.2001, the petitioner represented to the Chairman, CAT and the Secretary, DOPT for consideration of his re-appointment as Member with effect from 7.10.2001. He also made similar further representation on 1.5.2001 and 14.5.2001 to the Chairman, CAT and to the Secretary DOPT on 18.5.2001, 3.7.2001 and 4.7.2001. He made a demand on 1.8.2001 to the similar effect.
3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Act claiming that he is entitled to continue to hold the office as a Judicial Member until he attained the age of sixty two years and sought for various incidental reliefs. At a stage when the matter was heard and reserved for orders, that application came to be withdrawn to the file of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal by an order made by the Chairman. Challenge to the transfer of the petition made in the High Court of Calcutta was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
4. In the meanwhile, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 21329/97 (R.V. Mallikarjuna vs. Union of India) and W.P.No. 21439/97 (P. Suresh Reddy vs. Union of India & Ors.) held that the period of five years should be read in such a manner as to indicate that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall hold the office till sixty five years of age and Member, both Judicial and Administrative, shall hold the office till the age of sixty two years from the date of the assumption of office and Section 8 of the Act to the extent of fixing appointment only for a period of five years as unconstitutional. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of Section 8 of the Act.
5. The contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 8 of the Act providing the term of five years and thereafter re-appointment amounts to curtailing the period of superannuation at 62 years and is, therefore, void. It is submitted that this provision is contrary to the observations made in Sampath Kumar s case (supra). Reliance is also placed on the decision in Gurdev Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 1964(7) SCR 587. The learned Attorney General brought to our notice, while refuting the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, that the case of the petitioner was considered for re-appointment twice by a selection committee headed by a Judge of this Court but his name was not recommended for another term.
6. This Court while noticing that the Act, as originally framed, provided for a term of five years from the date on which the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member enters upon his office or until he attains the age of sixty five years in case of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and sixty two years in case of other Member, observed in Sampath Kumar etc. (supra) as follows :
"Section 8 of the Act prescribes the term of office and provides that the term for Chairman, Vice-Chairman or members shall be of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.