Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neha Dheman vs Department Of Promotion And Industry & ... on 17 November, 2025
1
Item No.34/C-2
O.A. No. 495/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 495/2025
This the 17th Day of November,2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N.Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
NEHA DHEMAN
D/o. Lt. Sh. Devender Kumar.
R/o. L-183/1, 03rd flooг,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi - 110052
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Dr. Shubham Srivastava)
Versus
Union of India through Secretary-Department for Promotion of
Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry Of Commerce &
Industry, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Dr. Geetanjali Sharma)
2
Item No.34/C-2
O.A. No. 495/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) By way of the present OA, filed under section 19 of AT Act 1985, the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 and has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a. Quash the order of termination and the applicant be reinstated in the system and given the responsibility as held previously;
1. Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant to her position with full back wages and all consequential benefits @18% per month.
2. Award compensation for the mental agony, harassment, and discrimination suffered by the Applicant.
3. Grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
IX. INTERIM ORDER:
1. That the applicant prays that till the final disposal of this application, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
17. That the till the final disposal of the application, the stay be granted on the order of termination.
18. That the applicant be paid the suspension allowance since the day of the suspension till final disposal of case with interest."
2. A short reply in opposition to the claim of the applicant has been filed, and further short replies in opposition to the MAs have also been filed by the respondents. An order dated 28th February 2025, of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in 3 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025 OA No. 735/2025, has also been placed on record, wherein the Tribunal issued notice in that OA. The Atomic Energy Education Society is one of the respondents therein.
3. During the pendency of the present OA, the applicant has filed MA No. 1093/2025 to clarify the jurisdiction in respect of the service matter of the applicant against respondent No. 4. The applicant has further filed another MA, being MA No. 2199/2025, seeking reliefs similar to those sought in MA No. 1093/2025. MA No. 4399/2025 has also been filed by the applicant seeking reliefs similar to those sought in MA Nos. 1093/2025 and 2199/2025(Supra).
4. A reply on behalf of the respondents to the aforesaid MAs has been filed on 14th October 2025.
5. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard, and with their assistance the pleadings available on record have been perused.
4Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025
6. The undisputed facts are that on 14th May 2018 the applicant was appointed to the post of Company Secretary under respondent No. 4, i.e., International Convention and Exhibition Centre Limited (IICC). The applicant was placed under suspension on 7th July 2023. On 23rd October 2023, departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant. Subsequently, a speaking order dated 27th May 2024 was passed by respondent No. 4 (disciplinary authority), terminating the applicant from service with immediate effect vide order dated 29th May 2024.
6.1. In the present OA, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the termination order. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the applicant that, in the absence of the necessary notification from the Central Government under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whether the present OA is maintainable before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the 5 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025 applicant invited our attention to the minutes of the 23rd meeting of the Board of Directors of the IICC held on 30th June 2023 (Annexure A-3). By referring to such minutes, learned counsel has argued that the Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce, was physically present in the meeting. The Special Secretary (Logistics), DPIIT, the Managing Director/CEO of IICC, and the Joint Secretary, DPIIT, were present in the said meeting. It is submitted that since all three directors are senior officers from the Ministry of Commerce, and since the IICC is funded by the Government of India, this Tribunal, being the court of first instance in respect of service matters of Government of India employees, it would have jurisdiction over the termination of the applicant by respondent No. 4. He submits that despite the absence of a notification under Section 14 of the Act of 1985, employees of certain government 6 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025 companies have filed OAs before this Tribunal, and notices have been issued and in some OAs, the Tribunal has even adjudicated the issue involved therein.
7. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the notice dated 28th February 2025 issued by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 735/2025, wherein the Tribunal issued notice and the Atomic Energy Education Society was one of the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited our attention to the order/judgment dated 31st January 2020 of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 170/00759/2019, wherein the Tribunal disposed of the OA, in which the Chairman, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, was respondent No. 2, and the issue concerned an employee of respondent No. 2.
7Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8143/2023, titled Praveen & Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Another (Annexure), order/judgment dated 21st August 2023. He particularly relies upon paragraph 28 thereof to submit that the Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction, powers, and authority in respect of disputes concerning service matters, as the Tribunal is the court of first instance for such matters.
10. On the other hand, the respondents, in their reply to the OA as well as in their affidavit filed in opposition, have invited our attention to the fact that the IICC is a separate entity registered under the Companies Act, 2013. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that the IICC was incorporated for the special purpose and that the SPB was created by the Government of India through the 8 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025 Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) vide notification dated 19th December 2017. It is further asserted that although the IICC is a Central Government Public Sector Enterprise and it is a distinct and independent corporate entity, and therefore service matters pertaining to its employees do not fall within the purview of this Tribunal under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
11. It is further asserted that by the respondents that IICC is a Central Public Sector Enterprise under the administrative control of the DPIIT. However, its affairs are managed by the Board of Directors constituted under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The employees of the IICC are governed by the rules and policies framed by the IICC and approved by its Board of Directors. In this background, the respondents assert that the instant OA and the grievances raised by the applicant do not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 9 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025
12. In reply to the captioned MA, the respondents have reiterated that the affairs of the IICC are managed under the Companies Act, 2013, and that the constitution of the company, as per its Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association, provides that the employees of respondent No. 4 are governed by the policies approved by its Board of Directors. Reliance has further been placed on the order/judgment dated 17.02.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Jodhpur in OA No. 135/2023 and OA No. 136/2023, wherein it has been held that, in the absence of the necessary notification from the Central Government this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over service matters of employees working in NPCIL.
13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the judgments/orders relied upon by them. Undisputedly, mere 10 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025 issuance of notice by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal does not confer jurisdiction on this Tribunal, nor do such orders became binding precedent(s), particularly when the issue of jurisdiction was neither raised nor adjudicated in those cases.
14. With regard to the order/judgment dated 31st January 2020 of the Bangalore Bench in OA No. 170/00759/2019, we note that the Tribunal relied upon an earlier judgment in OA No. 370/2017 (para 7) to dispose of the OA. However, the issue of jurisdiction, particularly the requirement of a notification under Section 14 of the Act of 1985 in respect of employees of NPCIL, is not found to have been adjudicated in such matter.
15. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Praveen & Others (supra), particularly para 28 of the same reads as under:-
"28. In view of the abovementioned judgments, this Court is of the considered view that Section 14 (1) (b) (iii) of the Act, 1985, explicitly states that the CAT shall exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority over the dispute of the petitioners which is concerned with the criteria of service matters prescribed in the said provision and 11 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025 hence, the CAT would act as a Court of first instance. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the controversy raised by the petitioners, it is held that their remedy lies in getting their alleged dispute settled by the CAT and the said jurisdiction of CAT cannot be overlooked."
16. We may note that the judgment relied upon, does not hold that the service matters of employees of the organisations incorporated under the Companies Act, but not notified under Section 14 of the Act, 1985, fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
17. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are not of any help to the applicant in establishing that the present matter falls under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Jodhpur, in its common order dated 17.02.2025 in OA No. 135/2023 and OA No. 136/2023, has comprehensively considered the issue of jurisdiction, examining the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and various judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts and 12 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025 different Benches of this Tribunal, paras 2 to 4.5 of the said order/judgment dated 17.02.2025 are reproduced herein below:-
"2. Learned counsel for the respondents while raising a preliminary objection submits that the NPCIL does not come under the jurisdiction of this tribunal. He submits that this Tribunal in OA No.144/2022 (Rajesh Giri vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 04.12.2024 has already decided the issue involved in this matter observing that "in the absence of notification issued under sub-section 2 of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985 the Administrative Control of Department of Atomic Energy does not empower this tribunal to exercise jurisdiction in relation to service matter of the employees of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL)".
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the coordinate benches of this tribunal while taking lenient view have entertained the issue pertaining to the employees of NPCIL. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:-
(1)Union of India vs. V.K. Telang and others (Writ Petition No.2609/2016) decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on 27.06.2017.
(2) Nuclear Power Corporation & Anr. P. Ravindran & Ors. (Writ Petition No.15509/1998) decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on 12.07.2006.
(3) Thidil Kumaran vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA no.180/867/2019) decided by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench on 18.10.2023. (4)NPCIL & ors vs. Smt. Shashi Mishra (DB Civil Writ petition No.2889/2022) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan on 23.02.2022.
(5) Pawan Saini vs. The Union of India & Ors (OA No.290/00107/2023) decided by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench on 19.04.2023.
4. Considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record. The issue involved in the instant matter has already been decided earlier in the above referred matter by this bench declining to entertain service disputes of employees of NPCIL 4.1 Chapter III of Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal. As per Section 14 (2) of the CAT ACT, the Central 13 Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025 Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to Corporation or Societies owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or Corporation or Society controlled or owned by a State Government. As per provisions of sub-section (3) save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or Corporation or Societies all the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable immediate before that date by all Courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to (a) and (b).
4.2 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Central Government has time to time issued notification including the name of Corporation or Societies and other authorities in the Schedule to the Act. It is an admitted position that with regard to NPCIL no notification has been issued by the Central Government. In the absence of notification, this tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the service matters of employees working in the NPCIL. Administrative Control of the Department of Atomic Energy over the Corporation does not make any difference. The Department of Atomic Energy and Corporation are both different entities. Corporation does not mean department. Under the Department of Energy so many Corporation may be there. Without notification under section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, Corporation does not come within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
4.4. In none of the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the applicant, the issue of exercising the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal over NPCIL has been considered and decided on merits. Merely entertaining the service matter of the employees of the NPCIL by the coordinate bench of this tribunal does not make it a binding principle upon this Tribunal to entertain the above issue. 4.5 In view of the above, both these OAs are not maintainable before this tribunal. Registry is directed to return back the paper books to the applicant."
18. In light of the principles laid down by the co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur in its order dated 17.02.2025 (supra), we are of the considered view that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in the present matter.
14Item No.34/C-2 O.A. No. 495/2025
19. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All associated MAs also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N.Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/arti/