Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Santosh Malviya and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 8561 of 2022
Decided On : 20-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, Aditi Pandey.
For the Respondents: Ankur Goyal, Gaurav Mahajan.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the absolute power of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to hear cases of Central Government employees, including quashing office memorandums and declaring them ultra vires, as provided by Section 14 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the legal principles established by the Apex Court.

Headnote:
Writ Petition - Maintainability - Section 14 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging certain office memorandums and instructions issued by the respondents, citing the alternative remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The court relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, 1997 (3) AIR SC 261 and S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, 1987 AIR 386, which established the CAT's absolute power to hear cases of Central Government employees, including quashing office memorandums and declaring them ultra vires.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are Income Tax Inspectors, challenged certain office memorandums and instructions issued by the respondents. The respondent no. 1 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the alternative remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy before the CAT, as established by Section 14 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the precedents set by the Apex Court.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the alternative remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 14 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the legal principles established by the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, 1997 (3) AIR SC 261 and S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, 1987 AIR 386, which affirmed the CAT's absolute power to hear cases of Central Government employees, including quashing office memorandums and declaring them ultra vires.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, with the petitioner being at liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), if desired.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ankur Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. Earlier on 30.6.2022, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has raised preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition and Court has passed the following order:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gyan Prakash, learned A.S.G.I. assisted by Shri Ankur Goel, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 as well as Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging Para-7 Clause (iii) and (iv) of OM No. 20011/2/2019-Estt. (D) dated 13.08.2021 issued by respondent no. 1 and instruction dated 26.10.2021 issued by respondent no. 2. Further prayer has been made to command the respondent no. 1 to amend or modify the OM dated 13.08.2021 in accordance with law.

At the very outset, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned A.S.G.I. has raised preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition as the relief is sought against Income Tax Department and the remedy in respect of grievance raised by the petitioner lies before Central Administrative Tribunal. Since such remedy has not been exhausted, the writ petition filed directly before this Court is not liable to be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, 1997 (3) AIR SC 261.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate, let a proper response may be filed in the matter.

All the respondents are accorded two weeks' time to file objection in the matter. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

Put up as fresh on 20.07.2022 before appropriate Court.”

3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of All India Equality Forum and others vs. Union of India through Secretary and others reported in 2018 DLT 636 (DB) and submitted that present controversy is similar to the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court, therefore, this petition is maintainable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that in the aforesaid judgment of Delhi Court, petitioner went to Supreme Court and Supreme Court has granted liberty to petitioner to approach the High Court, therefore, Delhi High Court entertain the said petition. He next submitted that in light of Section 14 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as well as law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (0) Supreme (SC) 516 and S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, 1987 AIR 386, petitioners have efficacious remedy to file original application before the Central Appellate Tribunal (in short CAT). He lastly submitted that CAT is having full power to quash any office memorandum as well as rules and regulations or declare ultra-vires, therefore, petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgment relied by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute on the point that petitioners are Income Tax Inspectors and their services was governed by Central Government.

6. I have perused the judgment of Delhi Court in the case of All India Equality Forum (supra) so relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below:

“4. The issues raised in the writ petition throw open an expansive jurisprudential vista, and could invite a comprehensive and detailed dissertation on the entire law relating to reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in the context of Articles 16(1), 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India. This Court is, however, proscribed from doing so by virtue of an ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document