The Presiding Officer of a Debt Recovery Tribunal does not hold a civil post, and thus the Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over matters concerning such appointments under the Recovery of Debts Act.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Amit Bansal, J. The petition impugns the order dated 18th March, 2020 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.100/538/2020 preferred by the respondent. Vide the said order, interim relief has been granted to the respondent and the respondent has been directed to be continued in service as Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were the respondents before CAT.

2. The respondent herein was a member of the Judicial Service of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Vide notification dated 24th October, 2016 under Section 4 (1) read with Section 6 of the RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT , 1993 (DRT Act), the respondent was appointed as Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur. The respondent, vide order dated 29th June, 2017 was recalled by High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent challenged the said order of the High Court before the Supreme Court, whereby an interim order dated 28th July, 2017, the order of recall was stayed. Though on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh having recalled the respondent, the Ministry of Finance, vide order dated 12th July, 2017 had relived the respondent from the charge of Presiding Officer of DRT, but on interim stay being granted by the Supreme Court, the said relieving order was ordered to be kept in abeyance and accordingly a revised notification was issued on 8th August, 2017 and the respondent was allowed to continue in service.

3. The respondent, on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years on 30th September, 2017, superannuated from the judicial service of State of Andhra Pradesh. The Ministry of Finance issued notification dated 11.03.2019 and directed that the respondent shall be entitled to remain in service till 20th October, 2021 when he completes 5 years' service in the DRT or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

4. In view of the fact that the Respondent had superannuated from the judicial service of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 5th February, 2020 disposed of the challenge made by the respondent to the recall order. On the said challenge before the Supreme Court being disposed of, the interim order also lapsed and the Ministry of Finance vide order dated 12th February, 2020 relieved the respondent from charge as Presiding Officer, DRT Nagpur.

5. Aggrieved therefrom, the respondent approached CAT by filing the present OA challenging the relieving order dated 12th February, 2020 from which the present petition arises. The said OA was contested by the petitioner herein by filing counter affidavit. An objection as to the jurisdiction of CAT to entertain the said OA was raised by the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed before CAT wherein reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Others vs. Shiv Charan Sharma, (WPC No. 15754/2006 dated 26.04.2007).

6. Interim relief was granted to the Respondent by CAT vide the impugned order that Respondent shall be continued in service. It was reasoned/observed by CAT (i) Whatever may have been the circumstances, in which Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed in Shiv Charan Sharma's case (supra), the facts remain that at a later stage, when matters of similar nature were filed before the Hon'ble High Court, the writ petitions were returned, leaving it open to the parties to approach the Tribunal first; (ii) The respondents are not able to show any precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this aspect; (iii) Batch of OAs filed before the Tribunal in relation to the service conditions of the