Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Subhash Chandra vs Union Of India . on 17 April, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
SLP(C) 13778/14
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3743 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13778 of 2014)
Subhash Chandra Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India and Others Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant had filed O.A. No.872 of 2011, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, U.P., for quashing the order No.RRB/BPL/O.A. No.442/2010 dated 25th June, 2010 and to pass the appropriate orders. The said tribunal by the impugned order dated 12th February, 2013, held thus:
“Having weighed the arguments advanced by learned counsel and carefully scrutinized the record, on preliminary submissions, we are of the view that the Allahabad Bench of CAT does not have the jurisdiction to hear this matter since as per para 15 of Employment Notice No.03/2007 the jurisdiction rests with the CAT, Jabalpur Bench. Even on merits the Signature Not Verified applicant has got no case as he failed to attach the certificate regarding his SC Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2015.04.21 16:53:14 IST Reason: status as per the format prescribed in the Employment News No.3/2007 and thus his application being invalid was rightly rejected by the respondents. The impugned SLP(C) 13778/14 2 order dated 25.6.2010 is upheld.
Accordingly, this OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.” Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No.19347 of 2013, and the Division Bench of the High Court, while concurring with the view of the tribunal, stated thus:
“Be that as it may since the question of jurisdiction has not been decided by the Tribunal in the present Original Application No.872 of 2011 and we are satisfied with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we would not be inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition.” As the tribunal and the High Court opined that there was no territorial jurisdiction, the appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Jabalpur, M.P. in O.A. No.568 of 2013 and the tribunal vide order dated 9th July, 2013, held thus:
“From perusal of the documents filed by the applicant along with the OA we find that applicant's Original Application No.872/2011 for the same relief has been dismissed on merits by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal vide order of Annexure A-13, dated 18.2.2013 and the aforesaid order has been subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 10.4.2013 and, therefore, the instant Original Application for the same relief cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed.” SLP(C) 13778/14 3 The said order came to be assailed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.22000 of 2013 and the High Court vide order dated 3rd February, 2013, which is impugned herein, has opined thus:
“That being so, once on merits the claim of petitioner was considered and rejected by the Administrative Tribunal Allahabad then the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur has not committed any error in rejecting the application on such consideration. Petitioner is now required to challenge the second part of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in accordance to law before appropriate forum and then only indulgence can be made in the matter.” Having heard Mr. Yatish Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India, we are of the considered opinion that when the tribunal situate at Allahabad, U.P. had opined that it had no territorial jurisdiction, it should not have adverted to the merits. Similarly, when the High Court concurred with the view expressed by the tribunal as regards territorial jurisdiction, it should not have also addressed to the merits of the case. Because of the said situation, the grievance raised by the appellant has not been adjudicated by the tribunal at Jabalpur or by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Regard being had to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the delineation on merits by the Central SLP(C) 13778/14 4 Administrative Bench at Allahabad, as well as that of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, is set aside. Needless to emphasize, the reversal is to the extent of the delineation on merits. Similarly the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Jabalpur and the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh are to be set aside because there has really been no delineation on merits of the case.
In the result, O.A. No.872 of 2011 shall stand revived and the same shall be dealt with on merits. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................J. (Dipak Misra) ......................J. (Prafulla C. Pant) New Delhi;
April 17, 2015.
SLP(C) 13778/14
5
ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.5 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13778/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/02/2014 in WP No. 22000/2013 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur) SUBHASH CHANDRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 17/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yatish Mohan, Adv.
Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Nagar, Adv.
Ms. S. Usha Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)