Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli, J.
Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association - Appellant
versus
Union of India & others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No 6805 of 2022 and With Civil Appeal No 6806 of 2022
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Yes, the judgment addresses the early or speedy disposal of service matters as a core purpose of establishing State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) like the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT), and evaluates whether that purpose was fulfilled post certain judicial developments.
Key points related to early disposal of service matters:
Original purpose of SATs: SATs were created to provide speedy relief in service matters (recruitment, conditions of service, etc.), reducing court backlogs and enabling faster resolution of grievances by government employees. (!) (!)
Impact of judicial ruling: A 1997 Supreme Court decision introduced an additional tier of litigation (High Court review after SAT), defeating the speedy justice objective and rendering SATs less effective for quick disposal. This was a primary rationale for Odisha's request to abolish the OAT. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
OAT's performance data: In 2014, OAT had 47,619 pending cases at year-start; 13,823 new cases filed but only 7,417 disposed, increasing pendency to 54,334. The State deemed this unsatisfactory for speedy decisions. (!)
State's policy evaluation: Abolition was justified as the OAT no longer served speedy redressal due to multi-tier litigation, high costs, and low disposal rates; cases reverted to High Court without denying remedies. (!) (!) (!)
No violation of access to justice: High Court (with virtual benches) ensures continued speedy adjudication access, negating claims of prejudice to early disposal. (!) (!)
The Supreme Court upheld abolition, finding the decision rational and non-arbitrary, as speedy disposal remains achievable via High Courts. [p_128b][p_128e]
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.
| Table of Contents | |
| A. | Background |
| i. | Factual background |
| ii. | The impugned judgment |
| B. | Submissions |
| C. | Issues |
| D. | Analysis |
| i. | An overview of the proceedings arising from the abolition of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal |
| a. | The abolition of the MPAT |
| b. | The abolition of the TNAT |
| ii. | The Writ Petitions instituted before the Orissa High Court were maintainable |
| iii. | Article 323-A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs |
| iv. | Applicability of Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT |
| a. | There is no bar to the applicability of Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT to the administrative order establishing the OAT |
| b. | Section 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT is otherwise applicable to the Administrative Tribunals Act |
| v. | The notification dated 2 August 2019 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution |
| a. | The notification dated 2 August 2019 is not absurd or based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations |
| b. | The principles of natural justice have not been violated |
| vi. | The Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the OAT |
| vii. | The notification dated 2 August 2019 is valid despite not being expressed in the name of the President of India |
| viii. | The abolition of the OAT is not violative of the fundamental right of access to justice |
| ix. | The State Government did not take advantage of its own wrong |
| x. | The failure of the Union Government to conduct a judicial impact assessment before abolishing the OAT does not vitiate its decision to abolish the OAT |
| xi. | Miscellaneous contentions |
| E. | Findings and conclusion |
1. I.A. No. 52385 of 2022 (application for intervention by Mr. C. Ravichandran Iyer) is allowed.
A. Background
i. Factual background
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 7 June 2021 in a batch of writ petitions challenging the abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. 1 [“OAT”] Before setting out the facts which gave rise to the issues in this appeal, it is necessary to understand the context in which they arose.
3. Parliament inserted Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976. Part XIV-A consists of two articles, Articles 323A and 323B. Article 323A empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of certain disputes by administrative tribunals. Disputes concerning the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government, may be adjudicated by administrative tribunals. Article 323B empowers the legislatures of states to provide for the adjudication of certain disputes (enumerated in clause 2 of Article 323B) by tribunals.
4. In pursuance of the power conferred upon it by Article 323A(1), Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.2 [“Administrative Tribunals Act”]. The Statements of Objects and Reasons of this legislation records that it was enacted in order to give effect to Article 323A and also because:
“a large number of cases relating to service matters are pending before the various courts. It is expected that the setting up of such Administrative Tribunals to deal exclusively with service matters would go a long way in not only reducing the burden of the various courts and thereby giving them more time to deal with other cases expeditiously but would also provide to the persons covered by the Administrati
Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, and bypassing them for adjudication in High Court is generally not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances.
The assessment under Section 42 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act is invalid if based on an Audit Visit Report submitted after the statutory deadline, thus protecting the integrity of tax procedures.
The Central Administrative Tribunal must act independently as the court of first instance and cannot rely on previously quashed High Court orders in its adjudication.
The court reaffirmed that applications for compassionate appointments must be considered under rules applicable at the time of the deceased's death to avoid undue hardship, overriding newer rules tha....
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
Judicial review of Art. 311(2)(c) dismissal orders limited; referred to Full Bench for security-related cases post-committee and Presidential review.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
