* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 971/2024 and CM APPL. 57044/2024, 57045/2024 and

57046/2024 PARIKSHIT GREWAL & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Anushree Kapadia, Mr. M. Thirupathi Reddy and Ms. Ekta Kundu, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, SPC with Mr. Jitender Kumar Tripathi, GP and Ms.

Ojashi, Advocates for R1 Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava and Ms. Atreya G.C., Advocates for R2 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 27.09.2024 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. It is a matter of some discomfiture to this Court that, nearly three decades after seven Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court clearly held, in the near-iconic decision in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI, [$~27] that all matters which lay within the province of the Central Administrative Tribunal, [2“theTribunal”hereinafter] by virtue of Section 14, [314. Jurisdiction,powersandauthorityoftheCentralAdministrativeTribunal.–] of the

1(1997)3SCC261

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shallexercise,onandfromtheappointedday,allthejurisdiction,powersandauthorityexercisable immediatelybeforethatdaybyallcourts(excepttheSupremeCourt)inrelationto–

(a) recruitment,andmattersconcerningrecruitment,toanyAll-IndiaServiceorto anycivilserviceoftheUnionoracivilpostundertheUnionortoapostconnectedwith defenceorinthedefenceservices,being,ineithercase,apostfilledbyacivilian;

(b) allservicemattersconcerning—

Signature Not Verified

LPA971/2024 Page1of31

Digitally Signed By:AJIT Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, [4“theATAct”hereinafter] would have to be agitated before the Tribunal and that the High Court could not act as a court of first instance in such cases, petition after petition is still preferred in the High Court, in clear violation of the judgment. Every possible argument in the book is pressed into service, to somehow avoid L Chandra Kumar. Exceptions, not to be found either in Section 14 of the AT Act or in the judgment in L Chandra Kumar, are sought to be read into it by implication. In the process, both Article 141, [5141. LawdeclaredbySupremeCourttobebindingonallcourts.–ThelawdeclaredbytheSupreme] and 144 (i) amemberofanyAll-IndiaService;or (ii) a person not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referredtoinclause(c)appointedtoanycivilserviceoftheUnionoranycivil postundertheUnion;or (iii) a civilian not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause(c) appointed toanydefenceservicesor apost connected withdefence, and pertaining to theserviceof such member, personor civilian,in connection with the affairsoftheUnionorofanyStateorofanylocalorotherauthoritywithintheterritory ofIndiaorunderthecontroloftheGovernmentofIndiaorofanycorporationorsociety ownedorcontrolledbytheGovernment;

(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Unionconcerningapersonappointedtoanyserviceorpostreferredtoinsub-clause(ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporationor society or other body,atthedisposaloftheCentralGovernmentforsuchappointment.

Explanation.–Fortheremovalofdoubts,itisherebydeclaredthatreferencesto“Union”

inthissub-sectionshallbeconstruedasincludingreferencesalsotoaUnionTerritory.

(2) TheCentralGovernmentmay,bynotification,applywitheffectfromsuchdateasmaybe specifiedinthenotificationtheprovisionsofsub-section(3)tolocalorotherauthoritieswithinthe territory of Indiaor under the control of the Government of India and to corporationsor societies ownedorcontrolledbyGovernment,notbeingalocal orother authorityorcorporationor society controlledorownedbyaStateGovernment:

ProvidedthatiftheCentralGovernmentconsidersitexpedientsotodoforthepurposeof facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under thissub-section in respect of d