Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13004
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, BASANT BALAJI, JJ
AJITH S – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
OP (CAT) 68 2021
G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR), SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR PANEL,RAILWAYS
The court established that territory-based jurisdiction must consider where the cause of action arose, and not merely the applicant's posting location.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Central Administrative Tribunal - CAT Procedure Rules 1987 - Section 6.1 - The court held that the Tribunal overlooked essential factors regarding the cause of action while dismissing the Original Application based on territorial jurisdiction. The ruling emphasized that both parts of the jurisdiction provision require examination.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash an order and for transfer to a specific location. The Tribunal dismissed the application citing a lack of territorial jurisdiction as the applicants were posted outside Kerala.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Tribunal did not adequately consider whether part of the cause of action arose within Kerala, thus failing to address a critical aspect of its jurisdiction. The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was therefore legally unsound.
Issues: Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application despite the applicants being posted outside its territorial limits, particularly concerning the cause of action arising within Kerala.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the determination of jurisdiction requires thorough examination of both aspects of Rule 6(1) of the CAT Procedure Rules, specifically how and where the cause of action arose.
Final Decision: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the Original Application restored for re-evaluation.
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J The petitioners herein have filed the instant Ext.P1 O.A.No.259 of 2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, with the following prayers:
“1. To call for records leading to Annexure A-3 and quash and set aside the same as illegal, unlawful arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2. Direct the respondents to consider, transfer and relieve applicants to Thiruvananthapuram Division against DR quota vacancies of Asst. Loco Pilots forthwith, with all consequential benefits including benefit of seniority from the date of Annexure-
A3 order.
3. To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to grant.”
2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P6 final order dated 9.9.2021 dismissing the instant O.A.No.259 of 2021 on the ground that all the applicants are now posted at Salem which is outside the territorial limits of the State of Kerala and hence, the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal has no tribunal jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A owing to the mandatory conditions in Rule 6(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987. It is this verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P6 dismissing the O.A. on the ground of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction that is under challenge in this O.P. The prayers in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:
“ 1. To call for the records of the case and quash Ext.P6 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law:
2. To declare that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application No.259 of 2021 on its files
3. To call for records leading to issuance of Annexures A-3 and A-8 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and
4. To pass such other orders that are deemed just, fair and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Heard Sri.Hari Kumar G.Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners in O.P. and Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for respondents 1 to 5.
4. The operative portion of the findings and orders of the Tribunal at Ext.P6 dismissing the O.A. on the ground of alleged lack of tribunal jurisdiction reads as follows:
“5. On a careful perusal of the pleadings and hearing the various submissions of the parties, we find that the applicants are at present working at Erode in Salem division. Rule 6 of CAT (Procedure)Rules, 1987 reads thus:
6. Place of filing applications:-
(1) an application shall ordinarily be filed by an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction.
(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:
Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principle Bench and subject to the orders under section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.”
As per Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules 1987, an applicant has to approach the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction he is working. Here the applicants are working at Salem Division and the impugned order at Annexure A3 was issued from the Headquarters of the Southern Railway at Chennai. If the applicants are really aggrieved of the order issued Annexure A3, they ought to have filed the Original Application before the Madras Bench of the Tribunal. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction over Erode or Salem Divisions. So, there is merit in the contention put forward by the respondents in this matter. The applicants ought to have approached the Madras Bench of the Tribunal for seeking the relief.
6. In view of
