Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 794
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Bhaskar Bhattacharya And Kishore Kumar Prasad, JJ.
SIKANDER RAJAK - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W. P. C. T. 437 Of 2006
Decided On : 12/15/2006
Achinta Kumar Majmudar, SUDIPTO PANDA
The Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, if a part of the cause of action for filing such application has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Headnote:
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985 - JURISDICTION - Section 19, Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 - Part of cause of action for filing an application arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Tribunal entitled to decide the application - Order of transfer issued by appointing authority from within the territorial limit of the Tribunal - Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a sub-bungalow peon, was transferred from Chittaranjan to Hazipur along with the Chief Mechanical Engineer. However, the petitioner was not permitted to join at Hazipur and his salary was stopped. He filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking to enforce the order of transfer. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. It held that even if a part of the cause of action for filing an application arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is entitled to decide the application, notwithstanding the fact that the respondents are stationed beyond the territorial limit of the Tribunal or that the applicant was posted at a place beyond that limit at the time of filing the application.
Issues: Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the area where either the applicant is for the time being posted or at least a part of the cause of action for filing such application has arisen. The Court held that the petitioner's grievance arose within the territorial limit of the Tribunal at Kolkata, as the order of transfer was issued by his appointing authority from Chittaranjan, which is within the territorial limit of the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and directed the Tribunal to decide the application on merit.
( 1 ) THIS writ-petitioner under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant under Section t9 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against order dated April 17, 2006 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in Original Application No. 23 of 2005 thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.
( 2 ) THE case made out by the writ-petitioner in the application under section 19 of the Act be summarised thus :
The writ-petitioner was appointed as sub-bungalow peon by the Chief personal Officer, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works and on being so appointed, he was posted under the Chief Mechanical Engineer, the respondent No. 4. By an order dated February 28, 2004, the said respondent No. 4 was transferred to Hazipur under the East Central Railway and at the same time, the writ-petitioner was also transferred along with the said respondent no. 4 with the stipulation that he would act as the substituted bungalow- peon under the said respondent No. 4.
( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the respondent No. 4 moved to Hazipur pursuant to the order of transfer dated February 28, 2004, he did not take the writ-petitioner with him for the purpose of performing the duty of the substituted bungalow- peon at Hazipur, and asked the writ-petitioner to stay at Chittaranjan and serve as bungalow-peon at that place so long his family was not shifted to hazipur. The writ-petitioner, accordingly, performed his duty as substituted bungalow-peon at Chittaranjan till. the month of April, 2004.
( 4 ) ULTIMATELY, the writ-petitioner was driven out by the wife of the respondent No. 4 from the bungalow at Chittaranjan, as a result, he went to hazipur to join his duty as bungalow-peon of the respondent No. 4. However, the East-Central Railway Authority did not permit the writ-petitioner to join at Hazipur and his salary was stopped from the month of April, 2004. In spite of making representation before the respondents, they did not pass any order permitting the writ-petitioner to join at Hazipur. Hence, the application was filed before the Tribunal.
( 5 ) THE Railway Authority took a preliminary objection as regards the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the said application. According to the Railway Authority, the writ-petitioner having claimed relief against the east-Central Railway Authority, the Head Office of which is situated beyond the territorial limit of the Tribunal at Kolkata, the application was not maintainable.
( 6 ) THE Tribunal, by the order impugned herein has accepted such preliminary objection and has rejected the application on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction by giving opportunity to the writ-petitioner to move before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied, the applicant under Section 19 of the Act has come up with the present writ-application.
( 8 ) MR. Mazumder, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner has contended before us that the Tribunal refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by rejecting the application on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Mazumder contends that the writ-petitioner having prayed before the Tribunal for enforcing the order of transfer dated february 28, 2004 passed from the office of the Chittaranjan Locomotive works situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, part of cause of action of filing the application arose within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and as such, the Tribunal was entitled to decide the application on merit. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order impugned and sending the matter back to the Tribunal for decision on merit.
( 9 ) MR. Panda, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India has opposed the aforesaid contention advanced by Mr. Mazumder and has submitt
