Delhi High Court
Govindraju R G vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 July, 2023
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: July 18, 2023
53
+ W.P.(C) 3372/2023
GOVINDRAJU R G ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A. K. Behera, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Amarendra P. Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Sr. Panel
Counsel for R-1 & R-2.
Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with
Ms. Vanya Bajaj, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral)
CM APPL. 36094/2023
1. This is an application seeking early hearing of the writ petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
3. Writ petition is taken up for hearing and the application stands
disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3372/2023
4. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated March 06, 2023
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
('Tribunal' in short) in O.A. No. 367/2023, whereby the Tribunal has
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3372/2023 Page 1 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.07.2023
15:52:35
dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that
it did not have the jurisdiction. Relevant parts of the conclusion of the
Tribunal in this regard are in paragraph Nos. 16 to 18, which we reproduce
as under:
"16. In view of the aforesaid, we have to see as to whether
the refusal of grant of NOC for extension of deputation of
the applicant for 6th year started from 24.11.2022 and/or
his permanent absorption under the Respondent No.3 by
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is connected with his membership
of a combatised cadre of the SSB or not? As noted
hereinabove, once the applicant is admittedly a member of a
combatised cadre of the SSB, i.e., the armed force of the
Union, refusal by the competent authority amongst the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuance of NOC for his
absorption under the Respondent No.3 cannot be construed
not to be connected with the membership of the applicant of
a combatised cadre of the SSB, the armed force of the
Union. It would be evident from the Full Bench
Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Satyendra
Narayan Pandey (supra), answer ‗No' to the reference
before the Full Bench is for the reason that dispute raised
had nothing to do with the membership of the applicant
therein of the armed force of the Union. However, in the
case in hand, we are of the considered view that the issue
raised relates to membership/service matter of member of
the armed force. The definition of the expression ‗service
matters' has been considered by the Full Bench in the
Judgment under reference which is as under:-
―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, as the case may be, of any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3372/2023 Page 2 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.07.2023
15:52:35
corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the
Government, as respects -
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and
other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority,
promotion, reversion, premature retirement and
superannuation;
(iii) leave of any kind;
(iv) disciplinary matters; or
(v) any other matter whatsoever;‖
17. Therefore, in our considered view the aforesaid
Order/Judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal does not
help the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant
rather the same supports the preliminary objection raised on
behalf of the Respondent nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, we are of
the considered
view that the present OA deserves to be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction. The same is accordingly dismissed. However,
it would be open to the applicant to seek the remedy before
the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
18. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be
no order as to costs."
5. Mr. A. K. Behera, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that though the petitioner is working in the SSB but he is
seeking appointment / absorption on a civil post of Caretaker in Central
Administrative Tribunal and as such, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to
entertain the Original Application.
6. According to him, the issue in hand is covered by the Full Bench
Judgment of the Tribunal being Satyendra Narayan Pandey vs UOI & Ors.,
(1993) 25 Administrative Tribunals Cases (FB) 177, which judgment,
though relied upon by him was distinguished by the Tribunal erroneously.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3372/2023 Page 3 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.07.2023
15:52:35
7. Mr. Behera has also made submission on merit of the case, inasmuch
as the petitioner is entitled to the absorption in Central Administrative
Tribunal in view of the policy framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs
which contemplate the employer having given NOC for deputation /
absorption of the petitioner, the consultation required with the Ministry of
Home Affairs must not be read to mean concurrence of the Ministry of
Home Affairs.
8. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the communications
exchanged between Central Administrative Tribunal, SSB and Ministry of
Home Affairs & Central Administrative Tribunal. He submits, that the order
of the Tribunal is required to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to
the Tribunal for a decision on merit.
9. There is no dispute and it is a conceded position that the petitioner was
seeking appointment / absorption on a civil post of Caretaker in the Tribunal.
In that sense, the issue could only be decided by the Tribunal in view of
Section 3(q) read with Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
inasmuch as in terms of Section 14(1)(a), which reads as under, it is clear
that even a matter related to recruitment concerning to All-India Service or to
any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union, shall fall
within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal:
"14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central
Administrative Tribunal.--
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the
Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and
from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and
authority exercisable immediately before that day by all
courts (except the Supreme Court 39 [***] in relation to--
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3372/2023 Page 4 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.07.2023
15:52:35
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to
any All-India Service or to any civil service of the
Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post
connected with defence or in the defence services,
being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian.‖
10. We find, petitioner was justified in relying upon the judgment of the
Full Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal distinguished the judgment of the
Full Bench by holding in paragraph No. 16, which we have reproduced
above by stating that the issue raised by the petitioner relates to membership
/ service matter of a member of the Armed Forces. Suffice to state, the said
finding is overlooking the submission that the relief which the petitioner is
seeking of absorption on a civil post under the Union, falls within the
expression 'service matter' as defined under 3(q) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 and in that sense, the petition was maintainable before
the Tribunal.
11. Though submissions have been made on merit of the issue raised by
the petitioner seeking his absorption, we say nothing on the same, as the
Tribunal has not decided the issue on merit. Accordingly, we deem it
appropriate to set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and remand the matter
back to the Tribunal by holding that it has the jurisdiction to decide the issue,
which has been raised by the petitioner in the O.A. We accordingly revive
the O.A. on the Board of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the issue on
merits in accordance with law.
12. Liberty is also granted to the counsel for the parties to file additional
affidavits within three weeks from today.
13. As we find that SSB had agreed for extension of deputation till
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 3372/2023 Page 5 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:27.07.2023
15:52:35
November 23, 2023, though not agreed to by Ministry of Home Affairs, we
deem it appropriate to direct the SSB not to insist on the joining of the
petitioner in the SSB till the date of hearing before the Tribunal as fixed by
us. The Tribunal shall hear the counsel for the parties on August 10, 2023
and decide the Original Application as expeditiously as possible within two
weeks thereafter as an outer limit.
14. The Tribunal shall decide the O.A. on merits without being influenced
by any observations made by us in this order.
15. Petition stands disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. JULY 18, 2023/R Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 3372/2023 Page 6 of 6 Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:27.07.2023 15:52:35