W.P.(C) 3583/2021

Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 11^th May, 2021.

+

W.P.(C) 3583/2021 and CM No. 10856/2021 (for stay)

UNION OF INDIA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr.

Shahanullah and Mr. Gurtejpal Singh

Advs

versus

CHIKKAM VIJAY MOHAN

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. G.Tushar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Hitendra Nath Rath and Mr. Mayank

Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 18th March, 2020 of Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA

No.100/538/2020 preferred by the respondent. Vide the said order, interim

relief has been granted to the respondent and the respondent has been

directed to be continued in service as Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery

Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur. The present petition has been filed by the

petitioners, who were the respondents before CAT.

2. The respondent herein was a member of the Judicial Service of the

State of Andhra Pradesh. Vide notification dated 24^th October, 2016 under

Section 4(1) read with Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and

Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act), the respondent was appointed

2021:DHC:1561-DB

W.P.(C) 3583/2021

Page 2 of 6

as Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur. The respondent, vide order dated 29^th

June, 2017 was recalled by High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent

challenged the said order of the High Court before the Supreme Court,

whereby an interim order dated 28^th July, 2017, the order of recall was

stayed. Though on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh having recalled the

respondent, the Ministry of Finance, vide order dated 12^th July, 2017 had

relived the respondent from the charge of Presiding Officer of DRT, but on

interim stay being granted by the Supreme Court, the said relieving order

was ordered to be kept in abeyance and accordingly a revised notification

was issued on 8^th August, 2017 and the respondent was allowed to continue

in service.

3. The respondent, on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years

on 30^th September, 2017, superannuated from the judicial service of State of

Andhra Pradesh. The Ministry of Finance issued notification dated

11.03.2019 and directed that the respondent shall be entitled to remain in

service till 20^thOctober, 2021 when he completes 5 years’ service in the

DRT or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

4. In view of the fact that the Respondent had superannuated from the

judicial service of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 5^th

February, 2020 disposed of the challenge made by the respondent to the

recall order. On the said challenge before the Supreme Court being

disposed of, the interim order also lapsed and the Ministry of Finance vide

order dated 12^th February, 2020 relieved the respondent from charge as

Presiding Officer, DRT Nagpur.

5. Aggrieved therefrom, the respondent approached CAT by filing the

present OA challenging the relieving order dated 12^th February, 2020 from

2021:DHC:1561-DB

W.P.(C) 3583/2021

Page 3 of 6

which the present petition arises. The said OA was contested by the

petitioner herein by filing counter affidavit. An objection as to the

jurisdiction of CAT to entertain the said OA was raised by the petitioner in

the counter affidavit filed before CAT wherein reliance was placed upon

the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Others vs. Shiv Charan

Sharma (WPC No. 15754/2006 dated 26.04.2007).

6. Interim relief was granted to the Respondent by CAT vide the

impugned order that Respondent shall be continued in service. It was

reasoned/observed by CAT (i) Whatever may have been the circumstances,

in which Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed in Shiv Charan Sharma’