P.V.ASHA
N. Dharmadan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented By Secretary To Government of India – Respondent
Whether a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, who was appointed in the year 1989 and demitted office in the year 1994, is eligible for the benefit of the judgment in Ramakrishna Raju v. Union of India 2014 (2) KLT 218(SC) and entitled to get the pension refixed reckoning 10 years of bar practice, is the issue which arises for consideration.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Member of Central Administrative Tribunal on 10.7.1989, while he had been practising as an Advocate since 19.8.1959. The appointment of the Judicial Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) is governed by Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). At the time of appointment of the petitioner, (prior to the amendment to the Act in 2007) Subsection 3 of Section 6 of the Act, which provided for the qualification of Judicial Member read as follows.
“6. Qualifications for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Members.-
xxxx
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judicial Member unless he-
(a) is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) ha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.