Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
A.K. Singh - Appellant
Versus
Armed Forces Tribunal & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5245 of 2020; C.M. No. 18891 of 2020
Decided On : 25-05-2021
Whether the Petition is holder of a "civil post" and thus amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14(1) of the AT Act? Whether the present writ petition can be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the remedy available before the Tribunal, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative?
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was offered appointment as Assistant in Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, after successfully clearing the interview conducted by a Committee of the Members of the said Tribunal vide letter dated 14.11.2011. The appointment was on reemployment on contract basis for a period of one year and was governed by Ministry of Defence, I.D. Note No.7(11)/2009-D(AFT) Cell dated 10.07.2009, whereby the Ministry had agreed for appointment of retired Government Servants to fill up unfilled posts in the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, after Department of Personnel and Training ("DOPT"), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, gave "no objection" to the said appointments. It was mentioned in the offer letter that service of the Petitioner shall be governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and all other Government Orders issued from time to time. Petitioner accepted the offer and joined as Assistant w.e.f. 21.11.2011. He was subsequently appointed as Section Officer on 22.01.2013. It is averred that Recruitment Rules for the various posts in Armed Forces Tribunal were never finalized from its inception in 2008 till 2018 and Respondent No.1 continued to appoint eligible persons on re-employment on contract basis, including the Petitioner, and his contract was renewed year to year. However, vide letter dated 03.02.2020, the Respondent No.1 instead of extending the term by one year, as per past practice, extended the term only for three months and subsequently, vide letters dated 04.05.2020, 29.05.2020 and 24.06.2020, only month to month extension was granted. No extension was, however, granted after 08.07.2020 and services of the Petitioner were discontinued.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Petitioner is a holder of "civil post" and thus amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14(1) of the AT Act. The Court further held that the present writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the remedy available before the Tribunal.
Issues: (a) Whether the Petition is holder of a "civil post" and thus amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14(1) of the AT Act? (b) Whether the present writ petition can be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the remedy available before the Tribunal, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, wherein it was held that in respect of service matters, for employees amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, petitions cannot be filed directly in the High Court, overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which alone is a Court of first instance. The Court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balakrishna Ram v. Union of India & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 442, wherein it was held that where a writ petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights or where there is violation of principles of natural justice or the impugned proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, writ petition will not be barred on the ground of existence of an alternative statutory remedy.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law, if so advised.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the action of the Respondents in discontinuing the service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 08.07.2020 and a writ of mandamus to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Section Officer, with all consequential benefits, treating him to be in service from 09.07.2020.
2. Before proceeding to analyze and appreciate the controversy raised in the present petition, it is seemly to exposit the necessitous primary facts as averred in the writ petition. Retired from the Indian Army on 31.03.2011, Petitioner was offered appointment as Assistant in Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, after successfully clearing the interview conducted by a Committee of the Members of the said Tribunal vide letter dated 14.11.2011. The appointment was on reemployment on contract basis for a period of one year and was governed by Ministry of Defence, I.D. Note No.7(11)/2009-D(AFT) Cell dated 10.07.2009, whereby the Ministry had agreed for appointment of retired Government Servants to fill up unfilled posts in the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, after Department of Personnel and Training ("DOPT"), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, gave "no objection" to the said appointments. It was mentioned in the offer letter that service of the Petitioner shall be governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and all other Government Orders issued from time to time.
3. Petitioner accepted the offer and joined as Assistant w.e.f. 21.11.2011. He was subsequently appointed as Section Officer on 22.01.2013. It is averred that Recruitment Rules for the various posts in Armed Forces Tribunal were never finalized from its inception in 2008 till 2018 and Respondent No.1 continued to appoint eligible persons on re-employment on contract basis, including the Petitioner, and his contract was renewed year to year. However, vide letter dated 03.02.2020, the Respondent No.1 instead of extending the term by one year, as per past practice, extended the term only for three months and subsequently, vide letters dated 04.05.2020, 29.05.2020 and 24.06.2020, only month to month extension was granted. No extension was, however, granted after 08.07.2020 and services of the Petitioner were discontinued.
4. In the meantime, the Petitioner appeared for an interview on 14.05.2018, for the post of Deputy Registrar, advertised, after Recruitment Rules for various posts in Group "A" to "D" were notified through Gazette Notification dated 23.04.2018. Being unsuccessful in the interview, Petitioner was not appointed and he made a representation challenging the process of appointment of Deputy Registrar. Petitioner was also agitated issues of serious anomalies in services conditions of the employees of the Armed Forces Tribunal relating to break in service, pay fixation, etc.
5. Instead of redressing the grievances of the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 issued a Memorandum on 13.09.2019, asking the Petitioner to explain as to why no approval for hiring vehicles for official duty was obtained from the Competent Authority. Petitioner duly responded and filed reply to the Memorandum, but being not satisfied with his response, Respondent No.1 issued Memorandum of Charge on 15.06.2020 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCS) Rules, 1965. Petitioner filed a reply to the Memorandum of Charge but was ultimately found guilty of all the charges and a minor penalty of "censure" was imposed on him on 08.07.2020, the last working day up to which the contract had been lastly extended.
6. Petitioner represented to Respondent No.1 on 10.07.2020, seeking extension of his term of engagement, followed by another representation on 12.07.2020 for setting aside the minor penalty, which representations, as per the averments in the writ petition, were stated to be pending when the petition was filed. Penalty of "censure" is not the s
The power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is a basic and inalienable human right, forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and cannot be taken away b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of service matters covered by the Act of 1985....
The Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over grievances related to combatised personnel within the armed forces, distinguishing them from civilian staff.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from changes in Service Rules and the power of judicial review over legislative action.
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,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that all orders of the Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are appealable to the Supreme Court only within a period of 60 days from the....
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
