Single Member Benches of the Tribunal can adjudicate simple service matters, ensuring jurisdictional and procedural adherence, while complex statutory interpretations require a multi-member panel.

ORDER

M.A.1058/2024

Present MA has been filed by the applicant seeking recall of the order dated 30.01.2024 and directing the registry to list the OA before the Division Bench. Specifically, the prayer clause of the MA reads as follows:

“a) pass orders recalling orders dated 30.1.2024 and direct listing of the above Original Application before Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal hereafter, in view of subject-matter jurisdiction in the instant case [impugning interruption of service or forfeiture of service, impacting pensionary benefits of Applicant] being exclusively vested in Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in terms of item nos. 11 & 28 of Appendix-VII under Rule 154, CAT Rules of Practice, 1993;

b) pass any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The applicant, who is present in person states that Single Bench has no jurisdiction over the subject matter i.e. interruption/forfeiture of service. She states that the prayer in the OA is as follows:-

“a) pass orders quashing communication dated 7.7 2020 and directing respondents to pay Applicant Pension, Commuted Pension and Gratuity, completing all formalities, per procedure prescribed as in CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021 and by treating the period of Applicant having been declared to be "under- posting" as "duty", within the per timeframe fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and alongwith interest @ the rate of 7.5% per annum, till the date of crediting the payments to the bank account of Applicant; and

b) pass any other order(s) that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of the case.”

2. The applicant submits that the prayer is quashing of the order dated 07.07.2020 which is as follows:-

“I am directed to refer to your reply dated 18.09.2019 and to state that your services prior to 12 October, 2018 stands forfeited by the Order of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and same as ratified by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi holding you on unauthorized absence, followed by administrative order dated 05th December, 2018.

2. As far as the other issues raised by you are concerned action being taken in term of CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964 & CCS (CCA) Rule1965.”

3. The applicant pleads that this subject matter does not pertains to the jurisdiction of the Single Bench. She refers to the compilation regarding the CAT, Rules of Practice, 1993 published in the year 2009 where entry No. 11, break in service/dies-non is a subject matter of the Division Bench. She confers that because her retirement benefits depends upon the decision regarding break in service, it pertains to the Division Bench, any other matter like other pensionary benefits as combined with the break in service, the matter would ordinarily should have been gone to the Division Bench.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes the present MA seeking recall of the order dated 30.01.2024. He states that this is a simple order just asking the applicant to file rejoinder, if any. There is no final decision or any decision regarding question of law. Hence Single Bench has jurisdiction to pass order seeking rejoinder from the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has filed another MA No. 242/2024 with the same prayer and the prayer in that MA is identical with the prayer in the present MA. In view of this, prayer in the present MA should not be allowed.

5. In rejoinder, the applicant submits that MA No. 242/2024 has not been decided as yet b