NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1107 of 2024  Manish Kumar Manikpuri S/o Late Shri B.D. Manikpuri, Aged About 48 Years R/o Jawahar Navoday Vidyalay Mana Camp, Tehsil Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education And Literacy (Ministry Of Human Resource Development), C Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Rd, Rajpath, Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Delhi 110001.

2. Commissioner, Vidyalaya Navodaya -15, Samiti, Institional Area, Block B, Industrial Area, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

201307.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Bhopal Region A -135a, Gate No. 2, Alkapuri, Drm Office Road, Habibganj, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) Pin -462024.

4. Assistant Commissioner (Admn.), Bhopla Region A-135 A, Gate No. 2, Alkapouri, Drm Office Road, Habibganj, Bhopla (Madhya Pradesh) Pin 462024.

5. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mana Camp, Tahsil Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492015 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Parakh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

04.03.2024

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 26.12.2023 whereby the post of the petitioner is cited as deemed, in the Annual Transfer Drive and has also challenged the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by respondent No. 5 whereby his representation for Protection from transfer on the medical ground as per the Transfer Policy has been wrongly rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has some heart ailment but has not gone for bypass surgery but has taken some other alternate mode of treatment which has annoyed the authorities, therefore, this order has been passed.

3. Learned counsel for UOI would submit that the petitioner is employed in Navodaya Vidyalaya, as such, this Court has no jurisdiction and Government of India has issued a notification confirming jurisdiction to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as such this petition is not maintainable before the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently oppose the submission and would submit that since the right of the petitioner is being adversely affected therefore, this Court can entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The CAT has been constituted under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (in short “the Act of 1985”)under Article 325(A) of the Constitution of India with an object to decide the service dispute of an employee of the Government of India for whom the notification is applied to this effect. Relevant portion of the Act of 1985 which is required to decide the controversy raised in this petition is extracted below:

3. Definitions. —In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, —

[(a)“Administrative Member” means a Member of a Tribunal who is not a Judicial Member within the meaning of clause (i);]

7. Section “3AA” defines of the Act of 1985 reads as under: 3[(aa)] “Administrative Tribunal”, in relation to a State, means the Administrative Tribunal for the State or, as the case may be, the Joint Administrative Tribunal for that State and any other State or States;

8. To decide the issue raised in this petition, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 3(q) and Section 14 of the Act of 1985 which is extracted below:

Section 3(q) “service matters”, in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation 5 [or society] owned or controlled by the Government, as respects—

(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;

(ii) tenure