Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India vs Prem Chand Deshantri on 20 September, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 746/2022
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry Of Labour,
Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees
Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14,
Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi 110066
3. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi
Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi 110066
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Rajasthan,
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Zonal Office,
Nidhi Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 302005
5. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commssioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Zonal Office,
Nidhi Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 302005
----Appellants
Versus
Prem Chand Deshantri S/o Late Mr. Ranglal Deshantri, B-31,
Aashirwad Nagar, University Road, Near New Keshav Nagar,
Udaipur - 313001
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 20/09/2022 The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant UOI for assailing the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by learned Single Bench, turning down the preliminary objection raised by the appellants (respondents before the learned Single Bench) regarding maintainability of the writ petition. (Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 12:40:36 AM)
(2 of 5) [SAW-746/2022] It may be stated that the writ petitioner is employed in the Provident Fund Department of Government of India. He filed the writ petition aforesaid before the learned Single Bench of this Court alleging that the Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal was not available/not functioning at the relevant point of time and thus, there was no option with the writ petitioner but to file the writ petition, in this Court for raising his service dispute.
It may be stated here that immediately upon receiving notice of the writ petition in the year 2018 itself, the respondents filed an application raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in the year 2018. The said application came to be rejected by the order dated 27.04.2022 which is assailed in the intra-court appeal.
Learned counsel Shri Khileree submitted that the learned Single Bench was unjustified in rejecting the application by the impugned order observing that the writ petition could not be thrown out on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. He submitted that the remedy available to an employee in All India Services to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in relation to a service dispute is not an alternative remedy but is rather a statutory remedy provided under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1985'). Shri Khileree submitted that the petitioner was wrong in making the assertion in the writ petition that the Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal was not available/not functional. Shri Khileree drew the Court's attention to the bench-wise list of Chairperson/Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal which indicates that Judicial Member Smt. Jasmine Ahmed was posted at the Jodhpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 12:40:36 AM) (3 of 5) [SAW-746/2022] from 24.12.2012 to 07.08.2018. The said tenure was further extended from 03.07.2018 to 07.08.2023. Shri Khileree placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs Parma Nand reported in AIR 1989 SC 1185 and urged that jurisdiction of tribunal to interfere in the disciplinary matters/service disputes of Members of All India Services is a statutory remedy and not an alternative remedy. He also relied upon the orders passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No.5192/2020 (Prahalad Kumawat Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. decided on 09.09.2020) wherein, sustaining a similar objection, the learned Single Bench permitted withdrawal of the writ petitions and gave liberty to the writ petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievances.
Faced with this situation, Shri Mardia submitted that rather than relegating the petitioner to file a fresh original application before the Tribunal, the Registry of this Court may be directed to transfer the file of the writ petition to the Tribunal and the petitioner would thereafter, submit a proper application in the prescribed format so that the tribunal can adjudicate upon the issues raised in the writ petition.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order.
There is no dispute on the proposition that the jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the writ petition filed by the respondent lies exclusively and statutorily with the Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned Single Bench, rejected the application filed by (Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 12:40:36 AM) (4 of 5) [SAW-746/2022] the appellant (respondents in the writ petition) regarding preliminary objection of maintainability of the writ petition by observing that as the writ petition had been entertained long back, it would not be in the interest of justice to throw it out on the ground of alternative remedy. We feel that this observation is erroneous on the face of the record. Firstly, the application raising preliminary objections was filed by the respondents immediately after being put to notice of the writ petition. It is a different matter that the same could not be taken up and decided for nearly four years. Adjudication of service disputes of the employees in All India Services/Civil Services governed by the Union of India, is a statutory remedy provided under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which cannot be termed to be an alternative remedy.
The plea raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that the Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal was not functional has not been supported by any reliable material. Contrary thereto, Shri Khileree has shown to the Court, the position of posting of Judicial Member in the Jodhpur Bench which clearly shows that the Judicial Member aforestated was posted at the Jodhpur Bench from 24.12.2012 and continues to hold the said post till date.
In this background, we are of the firm view that the writ petition filed by the respondent (writ petitioner) was not maintainable and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents deserves to be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.04.2022 is reversed. In the interest of justice, we hereby direct that the writ petition No.7261/2018 (Prem Chand Deshantri Vs. Union of India & Ors.) preferred by the petitioner shall be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal for (Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 12:40:36 AM) (5 of 5) [SAW-746/2022] adjudication of the issues raised therein. The writ petition shall be treated as disposed of from this Court. The petitioner shall be required to file proper pleadings in the prescribed format once the file is received by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
31-Sudhir Asopa/-
(Downloaded on 22/09/2022 at 12:40:36 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)