Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Govindraju R G – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3372 of 2023
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Mr. A.K. Behera, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amarendra P. Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel, for the Respondent-1 & 2.
Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vanya Bajaj, Advocate, for the Respondent-3.
The issue raised by the petitioner falls within the expression 'service matter' as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and thus the petition was maintainable before the Tribunal.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - Central Administrative Tribunal - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 14
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment/absorption on a civil post of Caretaker in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner falls within the expression 'service matter' as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and thus the petition was maintainable before the Tribunal. The Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on merits.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide on the petitioner's appointment/absorption on a civil post.
Ratio Decidendi: The issue raised by the petitioner falls within the expression 'service matter' as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and thus the petition was maintainable before the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on merits.
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 36094/2023
1. This is an application seeking early hearing of the writ petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
3. Writ petition is taken up for hearing and the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3372/2023
4. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated March 06, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal' in short) in O.A. No. 367/2023, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that it did not have the jurisdiction. Relevant parts of the conclusion of the Tribunal in this regard are in paragraph Nos. 16 to 18, which we reproduce as under:
"16. In view of the aforesaid, we have to see as to whether the refusal of grant of NOC for extension of deputation of the applicant for 6th year started from 24.11.2022 and/or his permanent absorption under the Respondent No.3 by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is connected with his membership of a combatised cadre of the SSB or not? As noted hereinabove, once the applicant is admittedly a member of a combatised cadre of the SSB, i.e., the armed force of the Union, refusal by the competent authority amongst the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuance of NOC for his absorption under the Respondent No.3 cannot be construed not to be connected with the membership of the applicant of a combatised cadre of the SSB, the armed force of the Union. It would be evident from the Full Bench Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Satyendra Narayan Pandey (supra), answer `No` to the reference before the Full Bench is for the reason that dispute raised had nothing to do with the membership of the applicant therein of the armed force of the Union. However, in the case in hand, we are of the considered view that the issue raised relates to membership/service matter of member of the armed force. The definition of the expression `service matters` has been considered by the Full Bench in the Judgment under reference which is as under:
"3.(q). `service matters` in relation to a person, means all matters relating, to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, as the case may be, of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government, as respects-
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation;
(iii) leave of any kind;
(iv) disciplinary matters; or
(v) any other matter whatsoever;"
17. Therefore, in our considered view the aforesaid Order/Judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal does not help the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant rather the same supports the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondent nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the present OA deserves to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the applicant to seek the remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
18. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs."
5. Mr. A.K. Behera, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is working in the SSB but he is seeking appointment/absorption on a civil post of Caretaker in Central Administrative Tribunal and as such, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application.
6. According to him, the issue in hand is covered by the Full Bench Judgment of the Tribunal being Satyendra Narayan Pandey vs UOI & Ors., (1993) 25 Administrative Tribunals Cases (FB) 177, which judgment, though relied upon by him was distinguished by the Tribunal erroneously.
7. Mr. Behera has also made submi
