Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Govindraju R G vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 March, 2023

Author: V. Kameswar Rao

Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

                          $~45
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    W.P.(C) 3372/2023, CM APPL. 13072/2023(stay)
                               GOVINDRAJU R G                              ..... Petitioner
                                               Through: Mr. A.K. Behera, Senior Advocate
                                                         with Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh,
                                                         Advocate.

                                                   versus

                                UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                                              Through:            Appearance not given.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
                                             ORDER

% 17.03.2023 CM APPL. 13071/2023 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 13073/2023 (for additional documents) This application has been filed by the petitioner to place additional documents on record. The same is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3372/2023, CM APPL. 13072/2023(stay)

1. Issue notice. The counsel as above, accepts notice.

2. Notice shall be issued to the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal returnable on the date fixed.

3. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated March 06, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal („Tribunal‟, in short) in Original Application being O.A. No. 367/2023 filed by the petitioner whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that, it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the case had been filed by a member of the combatised cadre of the Shastra Seema Bal („SSB‟ in short) i.e., the paramilitary force of the Union and as such the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Behera submits that, this conclusion of the Tribunal is contrary to the decision of the full Bench of the Tribunal itself, in the case of Satyendra Narayan Pandey vs. UOI & Ors. (1993) 25 ATC (FB) 177, wherein the Tribunal has held that, it shall have jurisdiction over a member of an paramilitary force seeking employment to civil service connected to the Union. It is his submission that the post on which the petitioner is seeking absorption is in the Central Administrative Tribunal as a caretaker and is a civil post. In other words, the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

5. Mr. Behera submits that, the petitioner has been relieved on February 10, 2023 by granting leave with a direction to join the parent office. He states, the leave is expiring today. In other words, the petitioner is required to join the parent office on Monday. If that be so, we direct the petitioner to apply for extension of leave with the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, till the next date of hearing and the Registrar shall grant the leave to the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the parties shall file written submissions along with judgments on which they want to rely upon before the next date of hearing.

7. The counsel for the petitioner is permitted to inform the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal about this order passed by the Court by a written communication.

8. List on April 11, 2023.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

MARCH 17, 2023/v Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:20.03.2023 12:52:39