10.06.2025 (D/L-23) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)

W.P.C.T. 184 of 2024 National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Vs.

Shri Samir Dhar & Another Mr. A. K. Acharyya, Mr. Subir Banerjee, Ms. Moumita Das ...for the Petitioners Mr. Jagadish Ranjan Das ...for the Respondent No. 1

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The private respondent served the petitioner Corporation and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench post retirement alleging that he has been made to superannuate seven months prior to his due date of retirement. The Tribunal has found that the representation of the petitioner dated 21.03.2016 was pending and as such has directed for disposing of the representation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench which was not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the issue. He submits that from the entire narration of the petitioner’s service history as emanating from the Original Application it is obvious that no part of the petitioner’s service career was within the State of West Bengal and within the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. The order of the Tribunal directing for disposal of representation, therefore, is unsustainable. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another –Vs.- A. Shainamol, IAS and Another, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 267 Relying on this judgment, specifically paragraph 47 thereof he submits that the Original Application was required to be filed at a place where the applicant was posted. Since he was never posted within the State of West Bengal under the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, his Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench was not maintainable.

4. He further submits that the issue regarding date of birth has been racked up by the petitioner after his retirement by filing the Original Application. The date of birth (12.05.1958) has been recorded at the time of his appointment in the year 1979. Such belated claim should not be entertained.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant/respondent has drawn attention of the Court towards Rule 6 (2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 framed in exercise of powers under Section 35 and 36 of the Administrative Tribunal Act by the Central Government. Referring to the said provision he submits that since the petitioner has filed the Original Application subsequent upon his retirement and he was an ordinary resident of the State of West Bengal, filing of the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench is sustained by Rule 6(2) of the 1987 Rules.

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent that the Tribunal has not decided the issue regarding the petitioner’s claimed date of birth, the pending representation has merely been directed to be disposed of.

7. Considering the rival submissions and upon going through averments made in the Original Application we find that there is no dispute on the point that the petitioner during his service was not posted within the State of West Bengal under the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the Original Application has been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench after the applicant/respondent had retired. It is in this factual background that the rival submissions have to be considered.

8. The petitioner’s reliance placed on decision in the case of A. Shainamol (supra), in our opinion appears to be misplaced. From bare perusal of the judgment it is obvious that the applicant before the Tribunal had secured employment in an all India service wherein she w