Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Kumar Sharma & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 18 November, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1670/2013 Monday, this the 18th day of November 2013 Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Vijay Kumar Sharma & others ..Applicants Versus Union of India & others ..Respondents Advocate for applicants: Mr. Johri Mal Advocate for respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar O R D E R (ORAL)
In the present Original Application filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, they have assailed the O.M. No.G.I., M.F., OM No.21(8)/2010-E.II (B) dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure A-1) and have sought issuance of directions to the respondents to set aside the aforesaid O.M. and continue paying them the transport allowance in disregard of the said O.M.
2. Today, Mr. Johri Mal, learned counsel for applicants produced before me a copy of the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in Murari Lal Rustogi v. Union of India & others (O.A.No.2080/2012 with connected cases) whereby this Tribunal quashed the aforesaid O.M. dated 1.8.2012. Paragraph 6.6 of the aforesaid Order of this Tribunal reads as under:-
6.6 Under these circumstances, we quash the O.M. dated 01.08.2012 and direct the respondent-Ministry of Finance to re-examine the whole issue holistically taking into consideration its history starting from the issue of O.M. dated 03.10.1997, the various directions given by this Tribunal from time to time and the arguments advanced by the applicants in all these OAs mentioned in earlier part of this judgment for grant of special dispensation to satellite towns. This consideration will be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the decision taken will be communicated to the Ministries by means of a reasoned order. We also direct that till such consideration is made and orders issued by the Ministry of Finance, the employees will continue to draw the TA at the rates at which they have been drawing the same so far and no recovery will be made from them till then. Needless to say that if the applicants are aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents, they will be at liberty, if they so desire, to challenge the same by means of appropriate judicial proceedings. Accordingly, all these OAs are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
3. According to Mr. Johri Mal, learned counsel an issue involved in the present Original Application is, in all fours, of the view taken by this Tribunal in the aforementioned case.
4. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondents could not distinguish the said Order of this Tribunal on any count.
5. In Sub Inspector Rooplal & another v. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi & others, (2000) 1 SCC 644, the Honble Supreme Court has emphasized that in the interest of judicial discipline, a Bench of the Tribunal should follow the Order passed by another Bench. Relevant excerpt of the said Judgment of the Honble Apex Court reads as under:-
12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a Coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is oppposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the Coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two Coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate Court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior Courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuivandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, (1968) 1 SCR 455 : (AIR 1968 SC 372) while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same Court observed thus (para 11 of AIR) :-
"The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was bidning upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J. in Pinjare Karimbhai's case (1962 (3) Guj LR 529) and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas's case (AIR 1922 Bom 149) did not lay down the correct law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not ignore it. Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C. J. observed in Lala Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, (AIR 1965 SC 1767).
"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re-considered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."
13. We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and the parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship. Even otherwise also, the order copy of which is produced by learned counsel for applicants is passed by the Division Bench and is binding on me.
6. In the circumstances, following the aforementioned Order of this Tribunal, I dispose of the present Original Application directing the respondents to act as per the directions contained in paragraph 6.6 of the aforementioned Order of this Tribunal dated 4.10.2013 passed in Murari Lal Rustogis case (supra). No costs.
( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (J) November 18, 2013 /sunil/