The jurisdiction to decide the matters initially rests with the Administrative Tribunal, and the petitioners were required to file petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The court emphasized that the question of delay in filing the petitions would have to be considered, but considering the facts and circumstances of the cases and the nature of the dispute, the Tribunal should not dismiss the petitions on the ground of limitation.

Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Central Administrative Tribunal - The court held that the dispute raised in the writ petitions should be the subject matter of an original application before the Tribunal, and the petitioners were required to file petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The court also emphasized that the question of delay in filing the petitions would have to be considered, but considering the facts and circumstances of the cases and the nature of the dispute, the Tribunal should not dismiss the petitions on the ground of limitation.
Fact of the Case:

The learned Single Judge observed that the jurisdiction in this case rests with the Central Administrative Tribunal and referred the matter to the Division Bench to decide whether the jurisdiction to decide these matters initially rests with the Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners sought relief in service matters, and the issue of delay in filing the petitions was also considered.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dispute raised in the writ petitions should be the subject matter of an original application before the Tribunal, and the petitioners were required to file petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The court emphasized that the question of delay in filing the petitions would have to be considered, but considering the facts and circumstances of the cases and the nature of the dispute, the Tribunal should not dismiss the petitions on the ground of limitation. The petitions were disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty and observations made herein.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, referral of the matter to the Division Bench, nature of the dispute, and the question of delay in filing the petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute raised in the writ petitions should be the subject matter of an original application before the Tribunal, and the petitioners were required to file petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The court also emphasized that the question of delay in filing the petitions would have to be considered, but considering the facts and circumstances of the cases and the nature of the dispute, the Tribunal should not dismiss the petitions on the ground of limitation.
Final Decision: The petitions were disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty and observations made herein.

( 1 ) WE have considered the pleas that are raised in these petitions. Even at the stage of issuing notice in WP (C) No. 7688/2002, the learned Single Judge had observed that the jurisdiction in this case rests with the Central Administrative tribunal. The petitioners have stated in paragraph 2 (a) of the writ petitions that some persons have already obtained the benefits as sought for herein from different central Administrative Tribunals.

( 2 ) NOTICE was issued on the petitions. While issuing notice, the learned Single judge referred the matter to the Division Bench to decide as to whether or not the jurisdiction to decide these matters initially rests with the Administrative Tribunal. There is no dispute that in these matters initial jurisdiction is that of the Tribunal. It is only when a person is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative tribunal then only a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. The aforesaid issue was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge for our decision.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners states that there is no denial of the fact that the relief that is sought for in these petitions is subject matter pertaining to service matter and, therefore, the tribunal shall have jurisdiction to try and decide the present dispute. The petitioners rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Santokh Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. , Civil Appeal No. 3728/1991 decided on 26th April, 1993.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties we are of the considered opinion that the dispute which is raised in these writ petitions should be and could be the subject matter of an original application before the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners are required to file petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Of course the question of delay in filing the said petitions would have to be considered. However, considering the facts and circumstances of these cases and the nature of the dispute that is raised, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should not dismiss the petitions on the gound of limitation. Ordered accordingly. The petitions as and when filed shall be entertained by the Tribunal and shall be decided on merit as expeditiously as possible. It is, however, made clear that the said petitions shall be filed by the petitioners within three weeks from today. These petitions are, therefore, disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the prayer with the liberty and observations made herein. Petitions disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2006 Supreme(Del) 115

High Court Of DelhiRATI RAM - AppellantVersusUOI - RespondentDecided On : 01/17/2006

Judicial Analysis

High Court Of Delhi
RATI RAM - Appellant
Versus
UOI - Respondent
Decided On : 01/17/2006