Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
G. Muthusamy vs The Divisional Personnel Officer, ... on 19 July, 2001
JUDGMENT A.M. Sivadas, Member (J)
1. The only relief sought in this application is to direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on A4 representation within a lime limit. Respondents have inter alia contended that if this prayer is allowed, the applicant will be getting a new cause of action and that no direction may be given for disposing the representation.
2. It is to be considered whether an original application with the sole relief to direct the administration to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation is maintainable.
3. Article 323-A of the Constitution of India reads thus:
"Article 323A--(1) Parliament may, be law, provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts 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 or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
(2) A law made under Clause (1) may-
(a) provide for the establishment of an administrative tribunal for each State or for two or more States;
(b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said tribunals;
(c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals;
(d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in Clause (1);
(e) provide for the transfer to each such administrative tribunal of any cases pending before any Court or other authority immediately before the establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment;
(f) repeal or amend any order made by the President under Clause (3) of Article 371D;
(g) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as Parliament may deem necessary for ihc effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by, and the enforcement of the orders of, such tribunals.
(3) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force."
4. It is clear that the Administrative Tribunal is to adjudicate or try the disputes and complaints.
5. Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act reads thus:
"19. Application to Tribunal--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
EXPLANATION--For the purposes of this sub-section, "order" means an order made-
(a) by the Government or a local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or by any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government; or
(b) by an officer, committee or other body or agency of the Government or a local or other authority or corporation (or society) referred to in Clause (a).
(2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be in such form and be accompanied by such documents or other evidence any by such fee (if any, not exceeding one hundred rupees) [in respect of the filing of such application and by such other fees for the service or execution of processes, as may be prescribed by the Central Government].
[(3) On receipt of an application under Sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that the application is a fit case for adjudication or trial by it, admit such application; but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons].
(4) Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under Sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject-matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules."
6. From Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act it is also clear that the Administrative Tribunal is to admit the original application only if it is a fit one for adjudication and trial.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant drew our attention to the order issued by the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section 6 of Sections of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein it is stated that a Bench consisting of Single Member shall inter alia exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of cases relating to directions to dispose of representation.
8. Section 5(6) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act says that:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be competent for the Chairman of any other Member authorized by the Chairman in this behalf to function as [a Bench] consisting of a single Member and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the Chairman may be general or special order specify:
Provided that if at any stage of the hearing of any such case or matter it appears to the Chairman or such Member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench consisting of (two Members) the case or matter may be transferred by the Chairman or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer to, such Bench as the Chairman may deem fit."
9. The order relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant is only an order issued by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred on him and as such it is not having the force of statute. Such an order should be within the scope of the statute and not beyond. So, on the basis of the order issued by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act it cannot be said that an O. A. with the sole relief for a direction to dispose of the representation is maintainable.
10. The word "Adjudication" as per the Law Lexicon, complied and edited by Mr. P. Ramanatha Aiyer, (Re-printed Edition 1987) means 'the act of adjudicating; the process of trying and determining a case judicially; the application of the law to the facts and an authoritative declaration of the result'.
11. So, for adjudication, there should be an application of law to the facts and an authoritative declaration of the result. While simply directing an authority to dispose of a representation, there is no authoritative declaration of the result.
12. As per Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition), the word "Adjudication" means 'the formal giving or pronouncing a judgment or decree in a cause; also the judgment given. The entry of a decree by a Court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearing by a Court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved, and contemplates the claim of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest'.
13. There is no consideration of claims of all the parties and setting at rest when a representation is directed to be disposed of.
14. The word "try" as per Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) means "to examine judicially". To examine and investigate a controversy, by the legal method called "trial", for the purpose of determining the issues it involves.
15. While directing to dispose of a representation, there is no examination and investigation of a controversy by the legal method called "trial" for the purpose of determining the issues involved.
16. Thus the position is that while directing an authority to dispose of the representation, there is no adjudication or trial of the disputes and complaints and therefore, an original application solely with the relief to direct the administration to dispose of the applicant's representation is not maintainable.
17. Where it is open to the aggrieved person to move the Tribunal by obtaining redress in the manner provided in the Administrative Tribunals Act itself, the aggrieved person cannot be allowed to bye-pass the same and seek the sole relief in an application for direction to the authority concerned to dispose of the representation.
18. Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act reads thus :
"20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted.--(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievance,-
(a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or
(b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of Sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial,"
19. So, the position is clear that when a representation has been made by an aggrieved person and that representation has not been disposed of by the authority concerned within a period of six months, the aggrieved person can approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Thus, a person who has preferred a representation to the authority concerned, and if that authority has not disposed of the representation within a period of six months, the person concerned is not without any remedy. He has the remedy. The remedy is that he gets right to approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
20. A party can approach the Tribunal when he has got a legal right and that right is infringed. A legal right means any legally enforceable right. The prayer in an O.A. to direct the authority concerned to dispose of the representation cannot be said to be a legally enforceable right since in the absence of the authority concerned disposing of the representation within the period prescribed, the remedy is prescribed and as already stated that remedy is to approach the Tribunal for redressal of the grievance.
21. When an alternate remedy is available, the application is to be refused. Even though the applicant may have a legal right which has been infringed, in the absence of the authority concerned, disposing of the representation within the period prescribed, the applicant, instead of seeking for a direction by the Tribunal to the authority concerned to dispose of the representation has got the alternate remedy of preferring an application for redressal of his grievance.
22. As per Article 323-A of the Constitution and the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal will adjudicate disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union of India and Corporations or authority under the control of the Union of India excluding the categories specified.
23. In Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 460, it has been held:
"The function of the Court is not a mechanical one. It is always a considered course of action."
24. Granting the sole relief sought in this O.A. by directing the authority concerned to dispose of the representation submitted by the applicant is more a mechanical function than a considered course of action.
25. When directing to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the applicant, there is no question to be adjudicated or tried by the Tribunal. That being the position, this Original Application with this sole relief to direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on A4 representation is not maintainable.
26. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No costs.