Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Sh. Ram Pal – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9677 of 2023 & CM APPL. 37100 of 2023
Decided On : 24-07-2023
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal for all service matters as per Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and the limitations on the power of tribunals to test the vires of their parent statutes, as highlighted in the judgment of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Service Matters - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 14, Section 3(q) - The court discussed the definition of 'service matters' under Section 3(q) of the Act, which explicitly includes pension, retirement benefits, and leaves. It also highlighted the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal for all service matters as per Section 14 of the Act. The court referred to the judgment of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261, emphasizing the efficacy and judicial approach required for tribunals replacing High Courts, and the limitations on the power of tribunals to test the vires of their parent statutes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought writ/directions for the payment of arrears of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, Group Insurance Scheme, and Medical Benefit Card, which were withheld by the respondents after the petitioner's retirement. The respondent opposed the petition citing the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition fell under the definition of 'service matters' as per Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and therefore, the petitioner was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court dismissed the petition as it was not maintainable before the court and emphasized the efficacy and limitations of tribunals as highlighted in the judgment of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition before the court, considering the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal for service matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the definition of 'service matters' under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal for all service matters as per Section 14 of the Act. The court also relied on the judgment of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. to emphasize the efficacy and limitations of tribunals.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the instant petition as it was not maintainable before the court and directed the petitioner to seek remedy through the Central Administrative Tribunal.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Issue appropriate Writ/directions against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to pay whole of the arrears of capitalized value of Pension amount of Rs. 7,31,561/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty One Thousands Five Hundred and Sixty One Only) w.e.f. 01.04.2020 with interest on the late payment.
b. Issue appropriate Writ/directions against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to pay whole of the arrears of capitalized value of the whole value of Gratuity amount w.e.f. 01.04.2020 with interest on the late payment since 01.04.2020.
c. Issue appropriate Writ/directions against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to pay whole of the arrears of leave encashment w.e.f. 13.03.1960 to 01.04.2020 with interest on the late payment since 01.04.2020.
d. Issue appropriate Writ/directions against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to pay Group Insurance Scheme (GSLI) and to provide Medical Benefit Card whole of the arrears of leave encashment w.e.f. 13.03.1960 to 01.04.2020, with interest on the late payment.
e. Issue appropriate Writ/directions against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to provide Medical Benefit Card for which some amount already deducted by the respondent.
f. Issue appropriate Writ/direction against the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to pay an amount approximate amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs with interest w.e.f. 01.04.2020 to till its realization on the payable outstanding arrears of the petitioner to the petitioner.
g. Issue direction to the Respondent No. 1 & 2 not to harass the petitioner in future by holding his monthly pension amount due to filing the present petition. h. Allow costs of litigation to the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent.s action for withholding the statutory due of the petitioner causes severe hardship in getting the marriage of his daughter on the schedule date. It is submitted that the petitioner is legally entitled for the payment of all the dues which have been arbitrarily withheld by the respondents. The entire service record of the petitioner was satisfactory and there was no complaint against the petitioner during his service period.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after the retirement, the retiral dues which has not been paid by the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the law.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that this Court may pass an order or direction to the respondents no. 1 and 2 to pay the arrears of the pension amount of Rs. 7,31,561/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty One Only) with effect from 1st April, 2020 with interest on the late payment.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable as per Section 14 read with Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter "the Act"). It is further submitted that the instant petition is maintainable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal; therefore, the instant petition may be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
7. The petitioner in the present petition is seeking directions to the Municipal Corporation to allow him to pay whole of the arrears of pension, gratuity, arrears of leave encashment, pay Group Insurance Scheme (GSLI) and to provide Medical Benefit Card. Reliefs sought fall under the definition of `service matters' and therefore, by way of Section 14 read with Section 3(q) of the Act, the petitioner is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
8. Section 3(q) of the Act defines `service matters'. The Section explicitly contains the matters of pensi
