Madras High Court
J.David Jeyaraj vs Government Of India on 14 November, 2017
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.11.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.SR110631 of 2017
J.David Jeyaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government of India
rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services,
3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building,
No.10, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110 001.
2.State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Public (Estt.IV) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
3.Government of India,
rep. by its Under Secretary (DRT),
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Servics,
3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building,
No.10, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110 001.
4.The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I,
rep. by its Presiding Officer,
6th Floor, Deva Towers,
No.770-A, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
5.K.Siranjeevalu,
Principal Private Secretary to the Special Secretary,
Department of Economic Affairs,
143-A, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in F.No.8/46/2017-DRT, dated 04.10.2017 appointing the 5th respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant the petitioner with extension of deputation for a further period of one more year from 13.11.2017 in consonance with the G.O.Ms.No.375, dated 14.09.2017.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Rathnasabapathy, SPCCG
(For R1, R3 & R4)
Mr.V.Jayaparakashnarayanan, Spl GP
(For R2)
ORDER
This writ petition is taken up for answering maintainability query raised by the Registry.
2.The petitioner was originally appointed as Assistant Section Officer with the Public (Estt.IV) Department, State of Tamil Nadu (2nd respondent herein). He was also subsequently promoted as Deputy Section Officer and also as Section Officer in the year 2013. While so, the 1st respondent viz., Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department, issued a notification calling for applications for appointment by deputation to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai. In response to the same, the petitioner applied and he was also found most eligible. Hence, an order of appointment by way of deputation to the post of Assistant Registrar was granted by the 1st respondent on 15.09.2014. He was also relieved from the service of the State Government, by the order of the 2nd respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.10404, dated 13.11.20144, to take up the appointment as Assistant Registrar on deputation basis under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, for a period of three years. He has also joined duty as Assistant Registrar in the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, on 13.11.2014 and he has been serving till now. Moreover, one another government order in G.O.Ms.375, dated 14.09.2017, was issued by the 2nd respondent according sanction for an extension of deputation of the petitioner for a further period of one year with effect from 13.11.2017, which shows that he continues to be an employee of the Central Government.
3.Further, it is claimed by the petitioner that without any notice, the petitioner has been relieved from the post of Assistant Registrar. Therefore, he has questioned the impugned order issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department, dated 04.10.2017, by which the 5th respondent has been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, on deputation basis for a period of three years from the date he assumes the charge of the post or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
4.Since the said order dated 04.10.2017 appointing the 5th respondent viz., K.Siranjeevalu, as Assistant Registrar in Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, relates to the service conditions of the employee of the Central Government, the Central Administrative Tribunal alone got jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the petitioner cannot come to this Court. The Registry of Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot unnecessarily drag the petitioner from pillar to post. When the order dated 04.10.2017 specifically says that the 5th respondent has been selected to the post of Assistant Registrar, in which the petitioner has been working, he has to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, to redress his grievance.
5.Mr.S.Rathnasabapathy, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents 1, 3 & 4 herein also fairly submitted that since the terms and conditions of the post viz., Assistant Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal is under question, this Court does not have any jurisdiction.
5.Recording the above said submission of the learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government, this petition is rejected. However, the Registrar of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, is directed to number and list the matter for adjudication before the appropriate bench.
14.11.2017 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ssv NOTE:- Issue Today T.RAJA, J.
ssv W.P.No.SR110631 of 2017 14.11.2017