Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Rubi Singh, w/o Rajeev Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 205 of 2023
Decided on : 13-02-2024
[JURISDICTION] - [ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT] - [Section 14] - [The court discussed the jurisdictional provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, particularly Section 14, which outlines the powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court interpreted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s case as there was no notification from the Central Government applying the provisions of the Act to the respondent corporation. This lack of jurisdiction was deemed fundamental, leading to the conclusion that the Tribunal's order was a nullity.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, initially appointed as an Assistant Office Manager on a contractual basis, sought maternity leave which was denied. Subsequently, her contract was terminated under the pretext of an office order, and she challenged this termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed her application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Central Administrative Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the petitioner was not a holder of a civil post under the Union, and there was no notification under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, extending the Tribunal's jurisdiction to the respondent corporation.
Issues: 1. Whether a forum lacking jurisdiction can make a valid decision. 2. If a jurisdictional issue not raised before the Tribunal can be considered by a higher forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that jurisdictional issues go to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage. A decision made by a forum without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be allowed to stand. The court emphasized the importance of rectifying jurisdictional errors to prevent the perpetuation of illegality.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, declaring it null and void, and allowed the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Reference may be made to the order dated 10.01.2024 by which time was allowed on the prayer being made by Mr. PAS Pati, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2-4 to seek instructions.
2. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2-4 has sought for leave of this Court that the counter affidavit is ready and copy of the same has also been served in Court, hence, leave has been sought for to file the same in the court for its acceptance.
3. This Court considering the aforesaid submission and taking into consideration the fact that in the counter affidavit the issue of jurisdiction is the main ground for making opposition to entertain the instant writ petition.
4. Since the issue of jurisdiction is purely a legal issue and there is no question of rebuttal since the factual aspect is not in dispute in this counter affidavit. Further, this Court is only on the issue of jurisdiction of maintaining the instant application filed before the Tribunal in view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and as such, we have taken note of the objection so made on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 at paragraph-2 of the order dated 10.01.2024, as such, we are of the view that in order to decide the aforesaid legal issue, it would be just and proper to accept the said counter affidavit in Court.
5. Accordingly, the said counter affidavit is taken on record.
6. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench Ranchi in O.A. No. 898 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the relief was sought for quashing the office order dated 5/28/2022/karmic dated 19.05.2022 by which the relief sought for on the ground of parity to allow the petitioner to continue as Assistant Office Manager has been refused to be granted.
7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:
As per the extension of petitioner's contract extended vide Office Order No. 160/CNT/EXT (PS)/2021, dated 14.01.2021 on Pay Scale basis till 31.12.2021, the engagement of the petitioner was for the aforesaid period or will be co-terminus with the project duration.
It is the case of the petitioner that she was pregnant and in pursuance thereof, she made an application to the project manager for grant of maternity leave from 01.04.2022 to 30.09.2022, but maternity leave was not granted and even no receipt was issued to her.
It is the case of the petitioner that the project is still going on and the authorities without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has ended the contract of the petitioner under the garb of office order No.84/CNT/EXT/2022 dated 09.02.2022.
Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed Original Application vide O.A. No. 898/2022, before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Ranchi Circuit Bench, challenging the Order dated 09.02.2022, whereby and whereunder under the garb of extension of contract virtually the service of the petitioner has been ended and the order dated 19.05.2022, appointment order of Santosh Solanki, whereby and whereunder the in place of petitioner, only by changing the designation of post/nomenclature the respondent no.5 has been appointed for the same work which was assigned to the petitioner.
The Learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No.898/2022, vide Order dated 13.12.2022.
8. It is evident from the order passed by the learned Tribunal that the said application was decided on the very first day without calling
AI
The lack of jurisdiction of a tribunal is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any stage, and any decision made by a tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity.
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,....
A court or tribunal must decide a pending application for vacation of an interim stay before initiating or insisting upon compliance under the threat of contempt. Preemptively enforcing an interim or....
The High Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite alternative remedies when natural justice is violated or extraordinary circumstances exist, emphasizing procedural integrity in publ....
The failure to file a delay condonation application renders an original application before the Tribunal non-maintainable, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions.
The Central Administrative Tribunal must act as a court of first instance, addressing factual inquiries rather than merely exercising judicial review powers.
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....
Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, and bypassing them for adjudication in High Court is generally not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances.
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
