Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ranveer Singh vs Nvs on 3 May, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 60/444/2024
Chandigarh, this the 3rd day of May, 2024
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Ranveer Singh, aged 53 years, S/o Sunder Singh, Casual
Mess Worker, JNV, Nahan, R/o VPO Sen Ki Ser(43), Tehsil
Nahan, District Sirmaur (HP).
2. Dhanvir Singh, aged 43 years, S/o Hardev Singh, Casual
Mess Worker, JNV, Nahan, R/o Village Talon (49), Tehsil
Nahan District Sirmaur (HP).
3. Hemant Kumar, aged 38 years, S/o, Casual Mess Worker,
JNV, Nahan, R/o VPO Nowa, Tehsil Sadar, District Sirmaur
(HP).
4. Kamaljeet, aged 40 years, S/o Ram Lal, Casual Mess
Worker, JNV, Nahan, R/o Noa, Tehsil Sadar, District Simaur
(HP).
5. Ved Parkash, aged 35 years, S/o Chainuram, Casual Mess
Worker, JNV, Nahan, R/o Village Khalara, PO Gharan, Tehsil
Sadar, District (HP).
6. Deepinder, aged 51 years, S/o Bhagat Ram, Casual Mess
Worker, JNV Mandi, R/o Village Tundhla, PO Deori, Tehsil
Sadar, Disrict Mandi (HP).
7. Suresh Kumar, aged 40 years, S/o Ludar Singh, Casual
Mess Worker, JNV Nahan, R/o Village Mehani PO Gharan,
Tehsil Sadar District Mandi (HP).
8. Babli, aged 38 years, W/o Sh. Roshan Lal, Casual Mess
Worker, JNV, Paprola, Kangra, R/o Village Lugat, PO
Kacchera, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra (HP).
...Applicants
2
(BY ADVOCATES: Ms. Anju Arora with Ms. Manpreet Kaur)
VERSUS
1. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of School of Education &
Literacy) (Government of India), B-15, Institutional Area,
Sector 62, Noida through its Commissioner - 201307.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
(Ministry of Human Resource Department, Department of
School Education & Literacy) (Government of India),
Regional Office, Bay No.26-27, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh
160030.
...Respondents
O R D E R(Oral)
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. Applicants have preferred instant O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
(i) For setting aside the Recruitment Drive 2024 (Non Teaching Posts) sub-clause 2 i.e. the posts of Mess Helper (Group C) [Post Code 13] whereby the respondents have advertised the posts and wrongly and illegally not absorbed/regularized the already working mess helpers working since long 11-27 years.
ii) The present application is made against the illegal action and omission and for setting aside the below clause qua the applicants "3.1: M. Post & eligibility Criteria:-
M. Mess Helper: (Post Code: 13):
Age Limit: Between 18 and 30 years Essential qualifications:-
(i) Matriculation pass (Class X passed from recognized board)
(ii) 05 years' experience of working in a Govt. residential organization's Mess/school's Mess and
(iii) Passing of skill test prescribed by NVS"
AND 3 For setting aside the clause 25 of the Recruitment Drive 2024 (Non Teaching Posts) vide which jurisdiction has been wrongly and illegally vested in Delhi Court, Whereby causing grave manifest injustice to the applicants and deprived them from their livelihood. Copy of the impugned advertisement dated 23.03.2024 is annexed as ANNEXURE A-
1.
(iii) For issuance of direction to the respondents relax the age and qualification criteria to the applicants who are working against these posts from last so many years and regularised the applicants as Mess Helper from the date of the joining on their respective posts along with all consequential benefits.
iv) For issuance of direction to the respondents to grant the equal pay to the regular Mess Helper from the date of their joining or minimum of the pay scale i.e. basic pay, dearness allowance and grade pay along with interest @ 12% p.a. and all other perks and facilities which the regular mess helpers are getting.
v) Further respondents be directed to pay the salaries to the applicants for the gazetted holidays and winter & summer breaks which has not been given to the applicants, since the date of their joining.
2. The first issue requires to be address herein is as to whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the instant O.A due to the clause 25 of Advertisement for Recruitment Drive 2024 (Non Teaching Posts). For the sake of convenience the same is reproduced as under:
"25. Any dispute with regard to this recruitment shall be subject to the court having its jurisdiction in Delhi only."
3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and gone through the material available on record. In similar matter this Tribunal vide order dated 16.04.2024 in O.A No.324/2024 has held as under:
4"4.Ld. counsel for the respondents has taken preliminary objection as to lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the present O.A. In support of his contention, ld. counsel for the respondents has placed on record copy of order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 291/528/2018 and copy of judgment dated 14.06.2016 of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Special Leave Application No. 4528 of 2016 titled Yuvaraj Dilipsingh Zala Vs. Union of India.
5.The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 14.06.2016 in Yuvaraj Dilipsingh Zala Vs. Union of India (supra) has upheld the order of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal and held that that:
"5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in returning the Original Application to the petitioner herein to present it before the appropriate forum/court having jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the dispute. We see no reason to interfere with the same. As such, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned tribunal. Under the circumstances, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed."
6.Vide order dated 24.05.2023 in the matter of Salma Sultana Vs. Union of India in O.A. No. 040/105/2023, the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal has held that:
"36. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, as per Rule 6(ii) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction over the issue as part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal whereas on the other hand, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court of Delhi as already observed above. Therefore, objection to allow M.A. to treat the last page of the aforesaid Notification 09-15 July 2022 as part of record is not relevant as the respondents themselves have put before us the said last page of the Notification which contains Clause 23 by which except Delhi, all other Courts has been excluded from the jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute between the parties. Since the applicant was not in a bargaining position and since this Bench is having territorial jurisdiction, we are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the respondents on the basis of judgments which are distinguishable and sub-silentio in nature."
7.However, the order dated 24.05.2023 of Guwahati Bench (supra) has been stayed by the 5 Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C)/163/2024 vide order dated 12.01.2024.
8.The respondents in notification for recruitment drive 2024 (A-3) in clause 25 have mentioned that any dispute with regard to this recruitment shall be subject to the court having its jurisdiction in Delhi only.
9.Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been appointed by the respondents in terms of notification (A-3) and therefore clause 25 of the notification ousting the jurisdiction of tribunal outside Delhi is not applicable in the case of the applicant.
10.We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the respondents, and having regard to the facts in the case, we find force in the argument of the respondents that this Bench of the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in the instant O.A.
11.In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present O.A. cannot be entertained before this Bench of the Tribunal and the same is liable to be returned to the applicant.
12.Accordingly, the instant O.A. is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum."
4. The applicants herein have also challenged the same notification, i.e., Recruitment Drive 2024 (Non Teaching Posts) qua the post of Mess Helper (Group C) by way of instant O.A.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hakam Singh v M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd [1971 AIR (SC) 740] and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Gulati Construction Co., Jhansi v Betwa River Board and 6 another [1984 AIR (Delhi) 299] in support of her contention.
6. We have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. In the matter of Hakam Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court adjudicated the issue of jurisdiction of competent court in term of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 and Section 20 of Civil Procedure Code 1908. The ratio in the matter of Hakam Singh (supra) is not applicable in the instant matter as, Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 stipulates that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, but shall be guided by the principle of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act.
7. In the matter of M/s. Gulati Construction Co., Jhansi (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also adjudicated the issue of jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 2(c), 14 and 31 of Arbitration Act, 1940. The provisions of Arbitration Act do not help the applicants to satisfy that this Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter in terms of clause 25 of the advertisement. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel is distinguishable to the facts of this case.
7
8. This Tribunal has already held that the challenge to impugned notification, having clause 25, is not maintainable before this Tribunal due to want of jurisdiction.
9. The instant O.A is also liable to be disposed of in terms of order passed by this Tribunal in O.A No.324/2024.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present O.A cannot be entertained by this Bench of the Tribunal and the same is liable to be returned to the applicants.
11. Accordingly, the instant O.A is dismissed as not- maintainable with liberty to the applicants to approach the appropriate forum. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
Member (A) Member (J)
bp