Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajinder Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 27 February, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
MA. No. 545/2013 In
O.A. No. 4065/2012
New Delhi this the 27th day of February, 2013
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Shri Subhash Kumar
Versus
Union of India and Others
Shri Rajinder Kumar
S/o Shri Mangali Prasad
Executive Engineer,
Presently posted at CWE,
Ahmedabad. ..Applicant in MA
By Adovocate: Shri Vinay Kumar Garg & Shri Amit
Srivastava.
ORDER (ORAL)
Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Applicant under Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking permission to implead himself as Applicant No.2 in the Original Application No.4065/2012. According to the Miscellaneous Applicant, he and Shri Subash Kumar, i.e., the Original Applicant are similarly placed as his name has been shown at Sl.No.28 in the All India Seniority List of ASW 2001-02. On the other hand, the name of Respondent No.3 in the OA (Shri Mansa Ram) has been shown at Sl.No.49 therein. According to the seniority list of the next higher post of Executive Engineer (QS&C) as on 01.01.2012, the name of Shri Subhash Kumar has been shown at Sl.No.24 and that of Shri Mansa Ram has been shown at Sl.No.12. According to the Miscellaneous Applicant, while in the seniority list of ASW, the name of Shri Subhash Kumar was shown against Sl.No.28, his name was shown at Sl.No.26. In the seniority list of Executive Engineer (QS&C) as on 01.01.2012, the name of the Miscellaneous Applicant was shown at Sl.No.27, i.e., even below Shri Subash Kumar. It is also his case that his name should have been placed in the list of Executive Engineer immediately above Shri Mansa Ram as he has been accorded promotion as Executive Engineer with effect from the date his junior Shri Mansa Ram has been accorded promotion. Thus, the case of the Miscellaneous Applicant is identically placed with Shri Subash Kumar and, therefore, in the interest of justice and fitness of things, the Miscellaneous Applicant has also to be impleaded in the Original Application as Applicant No.2.
2. In support of his argument for impleadment as the second Applicant in OA No. 4065/2012 (supra), he has invited our attention to Rule 4 (1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 wherein it has been held that an application should be presented in Form I by the applicant in person or by an agent or by a duly authorised legal practitioner to the Registrar or any other officer authorised in writing by the Registrar to receive the same or be sent by registered post with acknowledgment duly addressed to the Registrar of the Bench concerned. By sub-rule (5) of the said Rule, the Tribunal can also permit more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause of action and the nature of relief prayed for, that they have a common interest in the matter. According to the learned counsel for the Miscellaneous Applicant though the aforesaid procedure is meant for the initial filing of the Original Application by more than one persons, yet this Tribunal has the power to permit more than one person to join in a single application even at a later stage.
3. He has also relied upon Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 wherein it has been stated whether the Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. The contention of the learned counsel for the Miscellaneous Applicant is that by allowing him to join as Original Applicant No.2 in OA No. 4065/2012 (supra), this Tribunal is only considering the expediency of the matter and securing the ends of justice.
4. Further, he has relied upon the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, 1908 by which power has been granted to the Courts to strike out the existing parties and also add additional parties in a plaint wherein it has been provided as under:-
(2) Court may strike out or add partiesThe court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
The learned counsel for the Miscellaneous Applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others 1992 (2) SCC 524 wherein it has been held as under:-
6. Sub-Rule (2 of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary fora complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
5. He has, therefore, argued that by the provisions contained in Rule 4(5) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the same powers as exercised by the Civil Court under the aforesaid rule is being exercised by this Tribunal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the Miscelleneous Applicant. In our considered view, the entire argument of the Applicant is totally misplaced for the following reasons:-
(i) Rule 4 (5) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 can be invoked by more than one person to join together and file a single application only if they agree to do so. In other words, consent among the applicants is a pre-requisite for filing joint application. In the present case, the Miscellaneous Applicant is totally a stranger to the Applicant in the Original Application and without his consent, the applicant could not have even filed the Original Application initially as a joint Application. In our considered view it is the right of any person to ventilate his grievance before the court on his own right and without the support of any another person.
(ii) Again Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is invoked by this Tribunal only to make such orders or directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. None of the ingredients of the aforesaid section is applicable in this case.
(iii) Again with regard to applicability of the Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short), 1908 is concerned, this Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down therein as already stated in Rule No. 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Moreover, what Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, 1908 states is that the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. By no stretch of imagination, the said provision can be interpreted as a provision which allows a person to force himself co-applicant in an existing Original Application.
7. In view of above position, this MA is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh