Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Govindraju R G vs Home Affairs on 6 March, 2023
1 O.A. No.367 of 2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,, New Delhi
O.A. No.367
367 of 2023
Orders reserved on ::16.02.2023
16.02.2023
Orders pronounced on : 6.03.2023
3
Hon'bleMr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'bleShriSanjeeva
Sanjeeva Kumar
Kumar, Member (A)
Govindraju R.G.
S/o Sh. Gopala Krishna RV
Age - 43 years
R/o Qtr No.12, Block-77,
Block
Sector--1, PushpVihar,
New Delhi-110017.
Delhi
...Applicant
(through Advocate ShriA.K.
ShriA.K. Behera, Senior counsel assisted by
ShriAmrenderPratap Singh)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
Delhi 110001.
2. Director General
SashastraSeemaBal
East Block-5,
Block R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110066
Delhi
3. Central Administrative Tribunal
Through its Registrar, Principal Bench,
61/35, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
Delhi
... Respondents
(through Advocate Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan for R
R-1 and R-2
and ShriGyanendra Singh for R-3)
R
2 OA No.367 of 2023
ORDER
Hon'bleMr.R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
The grievance of the applicant in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, is against the order dated 13.1.2013 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by virtue of which issuance of No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'NOC') for grant of his continuation on deputation for 6th year has been denied despite the fact that NOC has already been granted by them for his absorption in the office of respondent no.3. The applicant is also aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2023 (Annexure A-2) issued by the respondent no.3 purely based on the order dated 13.1.2023. As such, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. Quash and set aside the order dated 13.01.2023 and 03.02.2023.
b. Direct the Respondent i.e. MHA to accord concurrence to the applicant for NOC for permanent absorption as caretaker in CAT forthwith as the parent dept. has already issued NOC vide letter dated 29.9.2022.
c. Direct Respondent no.3 to absorb the applicant as caretaker forthwith with all consequential benefits.
d. Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.3 OA No.367 of 2023
e. Direct the Respondent to pay the cost of litigation to the applicant."
2. Facts of the case, in brief, as evident from the pleadings on behalf of the applicant, are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Constable in the Sashastra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred to as 'SSB') on 12.8.2003 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) on 2.4.2014.
2.1 On 23.11.2017, the applicant came on deputation as a Caretaker in the office of Respondent No.3 initially for one year and the said deputation period was extended upto 5th year vide orders dated 15.10.2018, 21.11.2019, 02.12.2020 and 13.10.2022 (Annexure A-3 (Colly.)) which ended after 23,11,2022. During the aforesaid period, the process of absorption of the applicant as Caretaker in the office of respondent No.3 started and on 20.6.2019 (Annexure A-4), the applicant gave his willingness for his absorption. 2.2 On the basis of the aforesaid willingness of the applicant, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 16.7.2019 (Annexure A-5) sought NOC from the parent department of the applicant, i.e., Respondent No.2 for his absorption. The applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure A-6) by the 4 OA No.367 of 2023 Respondent No.2 regarding the fraudulent claims of LTC for Rs.55,518.00 which was duly replied to by the applicant vide his reply dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure A-7). After receipt of the aforesaid reply of the applicant, the respondent no.2 gave its NOC for absorption of the applicant in the office of respondent no.3 vide order dated 16.9.2020 (Annexure A-8). 2.3 According to the applicant, the parent department of the applicant was convinced that the applicant was not involved in the fraud and forgery in the air tickets booked for availing LTC. However, when the aforesaid NOC was considered by the Respondent No.1, i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs, the respondent no.1 granted NOC for extension of deputation of the applicant for 4th year and advised respondent no.3 to process the case of absorption of the applicant vide order dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure A-9) and further the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against one SI (Min) Milan Kherkatary, who was handling the administrative task to book journey tickets of all officers of SSB and the SSB lodged criminal case against the said person which was registered as FIR No.RC-DAI-2020-A- 0041 dated 16.12.2020 by CBI/ACB/New Delhi (Annexure A-10 (Colly.)).The said person was arrested pursuant to said criminal case by the CBI/ACB and suspended by the department and that the said criminal trial is going on. The CBI/ACB did not lodge any 5 OA No.367 of 2023 FIR against the applicant or any similarly placed person(s) as the CBI investigation did not disclose any case against them. 2.4 On 31.8.2021, the applicant submitted his representation to his parent department, i.e., SSB to recover the aforesaid amount and has explained his stand in the matter. During 2021, the applicant came to understand that because of the said enquiry of fraud and forgery in air ticketing by SI (Min) Milan Kherkatary, the respondent nos.1 & 2are not facilitating the process of absorption of the applicant in the office of respondent no.3. 2.5 In view of such facts and circumstances, the applicant without prejudice to his innocence in the said allegation of fraud and forgery and with a view to facilitate his absorption in the office of respondent no.3, offered to refund the aforesaid LTC amount to his parent department vide his representation dated 31.8.2021 (Annexure A-11) and thereafter the applicant again represented to his parent department vide his representation dated 28.9.2021 (Annexure A-12), vide letter dated 8.11.2021 (Annexure A-13) and further vide letter dated 29.7.2022 (Annexure A-14). The applicant has also represented to the respondent no.2 requesting for grant of NOC for his permanent absorption in the office of respondent no.3 vide his letter dated 17.8.2022 (Annexure A-15). The parent department of the 6 OA No.367 of 2023 applicant vide order dated 14.9.2022 (Annexure A-16) has granted extension of deputation of the applicant for 5th year subject to concurrence from MHA (Police-II) Division as per MHA deputation Police Guidelines dated 22/11/2016. 2.6 The respondent no.2 has granted NOC for permanent absorption of the applicant with respondent no.3 vide letter dated 29.9.2022 (Annexure A-17) subject to concurrence from MHA (Police-II) Division. The respondent no.3 again wrote a letter to respondent no.1 seeking concurrence for absorption of the applicant vide letter dated 3.10.2022 (Annexure A-18). Thereafter respondent no.1 has granted NOC for 5th year extension of the applicant's deputation with respondent no.3, subject to condition that necessary approval of their Competent Authority will be obtained for extension by respondent no.3 in terms of DoPT's OM dated 18.5.2018, vide order dated 4.10.2022.
2.7 On 25.10.2022, the applicant visited his parent department and submitted his letter dated 25.10.2022 (Annexure A-20) and offered to return the entire amount of the aforesaid LTC, i.e., Rs.55518 and enclosed a cheque bearing no.930341 amounting to Rs.55818/- in favour of 'Accounts Officer (DDO) SSB New Delhi' without prejudice to his claim. Since the deputation period 7 OA No.367 of 2023 of the applicant was ending after 23,11,2022 and correspondence regarding his absorption was still underway, the respondent no.3 sought for extension of deputation period of the applicant for 6th year vide letter dated 7.11.2022 (Annexure A-
21). Again vide his representation dated 5.1.2023 (Annexure A-
22), the applicant requested his parent department to accord concurrence for his permanent absorption and approval for extension of 6th year deputation beyond 23.11.2022. Even the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 6.1.2023 (Annexure A-23) wrote to the parent department of the applicant regarding grant of NOC for extension of 6th year deputation of the applicant with respondent no.3 as the correspondences regarding permanent absorption of the applicant was still underway. However, the aforesaid request dated 7.11.2022 regarding request of grant of extension for 6th year was rejected vide order dated 13.1.2023 (Annexure A-1) on the ground that the applicant was involved in fraudulent claims of LTC and disciplinary proceeding is pending against him.
2.8 In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 13.1.2023, the respondent no.3 has issued order dated 3.2.2023 (Annexure A-
2) repatriating the applicant to his parent office, i.e., respondent no.2 on or before 10.2.2013. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid 8 OA No.367 of 2023 orders, the applicant has filed the present OA for redressal of his grievance.
3. The matter was initially listed on 7.2.2023 when we heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. However, at the request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the matter was posted to 8.2.2023. On 8.2.2023, the matter was again heard at length and was reserved for orders. While going through the pleadings available on record to pass the Order, we found that respondent No.2 has referred to policy guidelines dated 22.11.2016 of Ministry of Home Affairs, i.e., Respondent No.1 in their communication dated 16.9.2020 and on-going through the said policy, it was observed that the said policy relates to 'Policy Guidelines for deputation of combatised CAPFs and AR personnel in other organisations and accordingly, further clarification/hearing was felt necessary in the matter and accordingly, the matter was listed again on 13.2.2023 under the caption 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'. On 13.2.2023, 2 days' time was sought by the learned counsel for the respondents to ascertain whether the applicant belongs to combatised CAPF cadre in his parent department, i.e., Respondent No.2 and to place on record, a copy of the relevant documents in this regard and also to bring on record a copy of the Recruitment Rules for the post on which the applicant has 9 OA No.367 of 2023 been seeking absorption under the Respondent No.3. The matter was again listed on 15.2.2023. On 15.3.2023, when the same was heard at length and for further hearing, the matter was posted to 16.2.2023. On 16.2.2023, at the outset, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have raised the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the present OA for this Tribunal lacking jurisdiction on the ground that the applicant is a holder of substantive post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial), i.e., a combatised post under the Respondent No.2 and the main grievance of the applicant is that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have refused to grant 'NOC' for his being considered for continuation on deputation for the 6th year/ absorption under the Respondent No.3 on flimsy grounds vide impugned communication dated 13.1.2023 (Annexure A-1). In support of his such contention, Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 has argued that the impugned order dated 3.2.2023 (Annexure A-2) is mere a consequential order for repatriation of the applicant to his parent department in view of the fact that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have refused issuance of 'NOC' for applicant's further continuation on deputation/his absorption. The learned counsels for respondents have placed reliance on the following orders/judgments of this Tribunal:-
10 OA No.367 of 2023
(i) OA No.2589/2012, titled Sujan Singh vs. Government of India and another, decided on 3.4.2014 by this Tribunal;
(ii) OA No.1215/2014, and other connected cases, titled ShriSandesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others, decided on 5.11.2014 by this Tribunal;
(iii) OA No.1720/2013, titled Shri Manish Bachhil vs. Union of India and another, decided on 7.8.2015 by this Tribunal; and
(iv) OA 2852/2004, titled HiraNand vs. Union of India and others, decided on 3.8.2005 by this Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, Shri Behera, learned senior counsel, appearing for the applicant has strenuously argued that the Orders/Judgments referred to and relied on behalf of the respondents cannot be treated as binding precedents in as much as in the said Orders/Judgments, though the Tribunal has ruled that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in the matter(s) raised by the officer(s)/official(s) of combatised cadre of the Respondent No.2, however, the said Orders/Judgments are judgments in per incuriam and are not binding precedent, as the provisions of Article 323 (A) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, have not been considered by the Tribunal while passing those Orders/Judgments. To buttress 11 OA No.367 of 2023 his such arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Gaur, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 101. He has further argued that an identical issue has been considered by the Full Bench of this Tribunal in Satyendra Narayan Pandey vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1993) 25 ATC (FB) 177, after considering the relevant Act(s) and law, the Tribunal has decided the issue and the same goes to support that the present OA is maintainable before this Tribunal. He has fairly submitted that although deputationist cannot claim continuation on deputation/his absorption in the borrowing department as a matter of right, however, such deputationist is having a right of consideration for such continuation/absorption in just and fair manner and in the present case, the applicant has requested the respondents for such treatment. He has added that initially the Respondent No.2 has agreed to issue 'NOC' for permanent absorption of the applicant under the Respondent No.3 vide communication dated 26.9.2022, of course, subject to concurrence of the Respondent No.1 as per policy guidelines dated 22.11.2016 of Respondent No.1 on the subject, however, subsequently, the Respondent nos.1 and 2 have issued the impugned order dated 13.1.2023 refusing to issue 'NOC' with a request to repatriate the applicant to the Respondent No.2. 12 OA No.367 of 2023 Learned senior counsel has argued that the issue in the present matter involves the absorption of the applicant to a civil post, i.e., 'Caretaker' under the Respondent No.3 and thus, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 will not apply and in view of the provisions of Sections 14 and 19 of the Act ibid still apply. Shri Behera, learned senior counsel has further argued that on the basis of complaint from the Respondent No.2 in the matter of forgery, cheating, fraudulent and dishonest claim of LTC, though the case being RC-DAI-2020-A-0041 dated 16.12.2020 has been registered by the CBI under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, however, the same is against one Milan Kherkatary, SI (Min) under the Respondent No.2 and the present applicant has not even been named therein. He has further added that there is neither any criminal case nor any departmental enquiry initiated/pending against the applicant or any other legal impediment available to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to refuse the grant of NOC in favour of the applicant for his continuation on deputation/absorption under the Respondent No.3. He has also argued that once the Respondent no.2 has earlier issued the requisite NOC vide their communication dated 16.9.2020and subsequently no legal impediment has developed thereafter, there is no reason or justification for the respondent 13 OA No.367 of 2023 nos.1 and 2 in issuing the impugned order dated 13.1.2023, refusing the issuance of NOC and seeking repatriation of the applicant forthwith.
5. We have perused the pleadings on record. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of the parties and have gone through the various judgments placed on record on behalf of the parties.
6. From the pleadings on record, the undisputed facts are that the applicant while joining the services of the Respondent No.3 as a Caretaker on 23.11.2017 on deputation was holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial), General Central Service, Group 'C', Non-Gazetted, Ministerial (Combatised). Such post is governed and regulated by the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and is called as Sashastra Seema Bal, Combatised, Ministerial and Stenographers (Non-Gazetted) Group 'B' and 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2011. The policy issued vide Circular No.I- 21022/03/2016-Pers.II dated 24.11.2016 lays down the guidelines for deputation of combatised CAPFs & AR Personnel in other organisations, copies of such Recruitment Rules and Policy have been placed on record on behalf of the respondents. The applicant came to the Respondent No.3 on deputation 14 OA No.367 of 2023 initially for a period of one year and thereafter the said deputation period was extended from time to time and lastly the same ended after 23.11.2011. Though during such period, the matter of absorption of the applicant remained under consideration of the respondents, however, it has been contended on behalf of the applicant that earlier the respondent nos.1 and 2 have given NOC for applicant's permanent absorption under the Respondent No.3. However, it is found that the Respondent No.2 has put up the matter of issuance of such No Objection Certificate before the Respondent No.1 vide communication I.D. Note No.1/Per- 4/SSB/AFT-/2018/1941 dated 16.9.2020 (Pages 32-33 of the OA) and the Respondent No.1 has accorded approval for 4th year extension of the applicant w.e.f. 24.11.2020 to 23.11.2021 and have required the Respondent No.3 to forward the case of absorption of the applicant subsequently vide order No.MHA UO No. A-12011/2020-Pers-III-3471747 dated 23.11.2020. Again though vide order dated 29.9.2022 (Annexure A/17), the Respondent No.2 has agreed to issue the requisite NOC for permanent absorption of the applicant under Respondent No.3, however, the same has been subject to concurrence of Respondent No.1 as per Deputation Policy Guidelines dated 22.11.2016 of Respondent No.1 and thereafter the Respondent No.1 has accorded NOC for continuation of the applicant's for 15 OA No.367 of 2023 extension of his deputation for 5th year vide their UO No.A- 12011/2021-Pers-III-3562128 dated 4.10.2022. However, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not issued any NOC for permanent absorption of the applicant before issuance of the impugned order dated 13.1.2023 refusing to issue NOC for 6th year extension of deputation of the applicant starting from 24.11.2022 to 23.11.2023. It has also been admitted by the parties that pending correspondence for permanent absorption of the applicant, the applicant remained working under the respondents even beyond the period of his approved deputation which ended after 23.11.2022. It is already recorded hereinabove that even on behalf of the applicant, it has been stated that the applicant is having no enforceable right for permanent absorption under the Respondent No.3 and the applicant is having a right for a fair consideration in this regard. It is not disputed that the claim of the applicant for continuation on deputation even for 6th year and his permanent absorption has been considered by the respondents. However, continuation/absorption has not been approved by the Respondent No.3 for lack of NOC from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. From the complaint dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure A/10 Colly.) of Respondent No.1 addressed to CBI, it appears that the same refers to involvement of 754 officers/officials of SSB, besides a few others, in the alleged 16 OA No.367 of 2023 fraudulent claim of LTCs and request has been made therein for investigation in the matter and a list of suspected persons has been assured to be provided. The case FIR No.RC-DAI-A-0041 dated 16.12.2020 also indicates that the same had been registered under Section 120B as well and the same has been registered against one Malan Kherkatary and other unknown persons. The impugned order dated 13.1.2023 indicates involvement of the applicant in the said fraudulent claim of LTC and pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him.
7. It is evident from the records that the Respondent No.3 has been willing for absorption of the applicant and in this regard, they have taken up the matter at various levels. However, they passed the impugned order dated 3.2.2023 to repatriate the applicant to his parent department with a direction to him to hand over the charge to the assigned officer on or before 10.2.2023 with a further direction to him to report for duty at headquarter of the Respondent No.2. In this background, it is evident and admitted fact that the substantive and basic challenge of the applicant is against the order dated 13.1.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 and the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.3 is a consequential order of impugned order dated 13.1.2023. Any rule regarding provision for absorption to 17 OA No.367 of 2023 the post of Caretaker under the Respondent No.3 has not been brought to our notice.
8. Now keeping in view the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the OA before this Tribunal on the ground of Tribunal lacking jurisdiction, it is to be seen as to whether the Respondent No.2 has violated any rule/instructions and/or law while passing the order dated 13.1.2023.
9.. We have gone through the Order/Judgment dated 3.4.2014 in OA No.2589/2012 in Sujan Singh's case (supra) of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and we find that the issue in the said case before the Tribunal was the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents therein regarding maintainability of such OA wherein the applicant, a combatised officer, had filed said OA. The Tribunal had considered its own Order dated 13.9.2013 passed in OA 2055/2012 with connected OA No.3322/2012 and had ruled in paras 3 and 4 as under:-
"3. It is not in dispute that the applicant belongs to combatized cadre of Sashastra Seema Bal and, therefore, governed by the provisions of Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 (in short, SSB Act, 2007) and Rules, 2009 framed under the aforesaid Act. Section 3 of the SSB Act, 2007 provides that officers and subordinate officers and under officers and other persons enrolled under the Act shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules. Rule 8 mentions the ranks and categories of the officers and members of 18 OA No.367 of 2023 the force. A perusal thereof, would show that the Assistant Commandant is at Serial No.(viii) of the list of officers. Section 4 of SSB Act, 2007 provides that there shall be an armed force of the Union called the Sashastra Seema Bal for ensuring the security of the borders of India and performing such other duties as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government. Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 excludes members of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union. Section 156 of SSB Act, 2007 provides that the existing SSB shall be deemed to be the force constituted under the Act.
4. From a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Section 3 and Section 156 of SSB Act, 2007 and Rule 8 framed under the aforesaid Act, it would be evident that the applicant is the member of Sashastra Seema Bal, an armed force under the Union of India. Therefore, the applicant being member of the combatized cadre of SSB, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this Application under Section 19 of the Tribunals Act, 1985. It is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, it would be open to the applicant to seek remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law. No order as to costs."
10. We have also gone through the common Order dated 5.11.2014 passed in OA 1215/2014 with connected cases, in Sandesh Kumar's case (supra). However, we find that though the claim of the applicants therein had been dismissed by the Tribunal, though as the Tribunal had dismissed the claim of the applicants therein for extension of deputation etc., but, we do not find any detailed discussion or adjudication on the issue of jurisdiction before this Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the said common Order/Judgment is not applicable to the issue as in the present case.
19 OA No.367 of 2023
11. In para 22 of the Order/Judgment dated 7.8.2015 passed in OA No.1720/2013 in Manish Bachhil's case (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had recorded that "Once having accepted the appointment of Deputy Commandant (Tele), the applicant becomes a combatised member and is not amendable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The applicant now seeks appointment with retrospective date on the basis of relaxation granted to him against a civil post."
12. So far as the Order/Judgment dated 3.8.2005 of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal passed in OA No.2852/2004 in Hira Nand's case (supra) is concerned, we accept the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant that the same cannot support the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 qua maintainability of the OA for lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal in as much as on perusal of the said Order/Judgment, it is evident that the said OA was dismissed as withdrawn only by recording the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents therein without any adjudication on such objection.
13. After going through the Order/Judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sujan Singh (supra), we find that though the Order/Judgment of the Tribunal is precise 20 OA No.367 of 2023 one, however, it is evident that while passing the same, the Tribunal had not only considered its common Order/Judgment dated 13.9.2013 passed in two OAs referred to in para 2 of its Order/Judgment but had also considered various rules, including the SSB Recruitment Rules 2004 and the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. From paras 3 and 4 thereof, quoted hereinabove, it is further evident that the Tribunal while passing the Order has considered the provisions of SSB Act, 2007 and provisions of Sections 2 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 etc. and thereafter only had come to the conclusion that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the service matter of the member of SSB, an armed force under the Union of India, and the member of combatised cadre of the SSB, and held that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the said OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. We accordingly do not find force in the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in Sujan Singh's case (supra) is in per incuriam. Similarly, in the case of Manish Bachhil (supra), this Tribunal had considered the issue of jurisdiction of this Tribunal in the matter of members of combatised cadre of the SSB and according we do not accept that the said Order/Judgment is in per incuriam.
21 OA No.367 of 2023
14. As the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has advanced detailed arguments to support his contention that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and has primarily relied upon the Order/Judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Satyendra Narayan Pandey (supra), we have very carefully gone through the same as well. The brief facts of the case of Satyendra Narayan Pandey (supra) before the Tribunal was that the petitioner, on the basis of the Civil Service Examination, 1987 was appointed as Assistant Security Officer, Group 'A' in Railway Protection Force, which is an Armed Force. The petitioner again appeared in the examination held in 1990 and secured 287th rank. According to his rank, he was not entitled to be appointed to the IAS, IAF or IPS but he was entitled to be appointed to a Group 'A' service. The petitioner was denied this appointment on the ground that he was already working in a Group 'A' service and therefore was not entitled to be appointed to another Group 'A' service under proviso to Rule 17 of the Civil Services Examination Rules. Though vide the subsequent order made by the then Chairman of the Tribunal, entire case stood referred to the Full Bench, the Division Bench has formulated the following question for decision of the Full Bench:-
"Whether on a true interpretation of the provisions of Section 2(a) read with Sections 14 and 28 and other provisions of the Administrative 22 OA No.367 of 2023 Tribunals Act, 1985, the provisions of the said Act apply to a member of any armed force of the Union, in matters relating to his recruitment to any All India Service or to any Civil Services of the Union or a Civil post under the Union."
15. After taking into account the detailed arguments advanced in the matter, provisions of Sections 2(a), 3(q), 14, 19 and 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and also the provisions of Article 323A of the Constitution of India, the Full Bench of this Tribunal has ruled in paras 7 and 9 as under:-
"7. ..... The Tribunal has not been conferred jurisdiction to adjudicate all types of disputes of the specified personnel. Jurisdiction is conferred only in relation to their recruitment and service matter. Other types of disputes of these personnel are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Section 2(a) is an exception to Section 14. Therefore, when Section 2(a) says that the provisions of Act shall not apply to a member of the armed forces of the Union, it means that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to adjudication of disputes relating to recruitment and service matters. In other words, the disputes in regard to recruitment and conditions of service of members of the armed forces of the Union are outside the purview of the Act. Mere membership of the armed forces of the Union is not enough to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal would be ousted only if the dispute relates to recruitment to the armed force. We may illustrate the meaning with examples. Let us take the case of a person who had held a civil post under the Union of India, resigned from the said post and became a member of the armed forces of the Union. If after his becoming a member of the armed force of the Union, he applies to the Tribunal to recover arrears of pay in regard to the civil post held by him, can his application to the Tribunal be rejected on the ground that he was a 23 OA No.367 of 2023 member of the armed force of the Union on the date of the application? The answer can only be 'No'.....
9. Though the petitioner was a member of the Armed Force of the Union, the dispute which he has brought for adjudication before the Tribunal, does not relate either to recruitment to the armed force of the Union or the enforcement of any of the conditions of service as a member of the armed force of the Union. He is seeking to enforce his rights to consideration for appointment to the All India Service wholly unconnected with membership of the armed force of the Union. Hence, the provisions of Section 2(a) are not attracted. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection and hold that this application is maintainable."
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 24 OA No.367 of 2023 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 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 25 OA No.367 of 2023 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.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /ravi/