Madras High Court
N. Murali vs The Registrar on 10 October, 2014
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, K.K. Sasidharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.10.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN W.P. No.24012 of 2014 and M.P. No.1 of 2014 1 N. Murali 2 Dr. S.D. Balakrishnan Petitioners vs. 1 The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai 2 Union of India represented by Secretary Department of Health Union Territory of Pondicherry, Puducherry 3 The Director of Health Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Services Puducherry Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 02.07.2014 passed in M.A. No.310/75 of 2014 in O.A. No.193 and 194 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent Tribunal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to execute the order of the first respondent Tribunal dated 18.03.2010 passed in O.A. Nos.193 and 194 of 2008. For petitioners Mr. J. Bharathi Raja For RR 2-4 Mrs. R. Maheswari Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel For RR 2 & 3 Mr. Syed Mustafa ORDER
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal for short) dated 02.07.2014 dismissing the Miscellaneous Application filed to execute the order dated 18.03.2010 in O.A. Nos.193 and 194 of 2008. The Tribunal also rejected the request for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.
2 The petitioners filed Original Applications in O.A. Nos.193 and 194 of 2008 before the Tribunal to direct the respondents to revise the pay scale of Bio-Chemists in the Health Department to Rs.8,000-13,500 with effect from the date of their appointment along with Book Allowance, Higher Degree Allowance, Risk Allowance and Conveyance Allowance, at the same rate, as admissible to the doctors in the Medical Wing of the Health Department. The Tribunal was pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to implement the recommendation of the Single Member Committee dated 02.08.2006 within a period of four weeks. The said order was not challenged by the respondents. However, the Government of Puducherry challenged a similar order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.786 of 2008 by filing W.P. No.12774 of 2010. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2012. The order passed in W.P. No.12774 of 2010 was challenged before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.16498 of 2013. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of laches as well as on merits.
3 The petitioners filed Miscellaneous Application in M.A. No.310/75 of 2014 to execute the order dated 18.03.2010 in O.A. Nos.193 and 194 of 2008. The petitioners also wanted the Tribunal to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents on account of their failure to comply with the direction.
4 Before the Tribunal, a reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents contending that the Government of India has made it very clear that the Union Territory administration has no authority to revise the pay scale. According to the respondents, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued notice to the Government of Puducherry to explain as to how Single Member Committee was appointed to look into the pay anomaly and acceptance of its recommendations by the Government without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. In short, the respondents contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is inexecutable in view of the limited powers available to the Union Territory of Puducherry.
5 The Tribunal, taking note of the subsequent events culminated in initiating proceedings by the Ministry of Home Affairs against the Government of Puducherry, opined that the Puducherry administration has no jurisdiction to revise the pay scales on its own. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application and the application to initiate contempt proceedings. The said order dated 02.07.2014 is challenged in this writ petition.
6 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.
7 There is no dispute that the Tribunal earlier passed an order dated 18.03.2010 in O.A. Nos.193 and 194 of 2008, directing the Government of Puducherry to revise the pay scale on the basis of recommendations made by the Single Member Committee. The Government of Puducherry appears to have approached the Union Home Ministry to ratify its action and to implement the recommendation made by the Single Member Committee. The Ministry of Home called upon Puducherry administration to state as to how it could appoint a Single Member Committee to revise the pay scale. The Government of Puducherry appears to have admitted its mistake in revising the pay scale on the basis of the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee.
8 The Tribunal, without knowing the legal position and the extent of power of the Union Territory administration to revise the pay scale, allowed the Original Application earlier. It was only when the order was referred to the Central Government for implementation, the basic mistake was realised by the Union Territory of Puducherry. The Government of India informed the Union Territory administration that it has no delegated authority for upgrading any post or to revise the pay scale, without the prior approval of Central Government.
9 The petitioners have not demonstrated that the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry have got the power to create post, upgrade it or to revise the pay scale without reference to the Central Government.
10 The President, who is the executive head of the Union Territory is functioning as its head, by virtue of the power conferred on him under Article 329 of the Constitution of India. The Administrator appointed by the President is essentially functioning as a delegate of the President. As observed by the Supreme Court in Government of NCT Delhi vs. All India Central Civil Accounts, JAO's Association and Others, (2002) 1 SCC 344, the Administrator has to act under the orders of the President, i.e., the Central Government.
11 The Government of Puducherry earlier committed a mistake. Without knowing its power, the Government have appointed the Single Member Committee and thereafter, revised the pay scale. The said action was clearly beyond its jurisdiction.
12 The petitioners wanted the Tribunal to implement its earlier order. The Tribunal found that the order was passed under a misconception and without ascertaining the authority of the Union Territory administration to revise the pay scale. It was only under such circumstances, the Tribunal held that the order is un-executable. There is no question of directing the Tribunal to execute an order which is per se illegal. The mistake committed by the Tribunal or Court should not give a premium to the petitioners. The illegality in the subject case would go to the root of the matter. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in declining to execute the order passed by it earlier. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter 13 In the upshot, we dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(S.K.A.J.) (K.K.S.J.) 10.10.2014 cad To 1 The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench City Civil Court Buildings Chennai 1 The Secretary Department of Health Union Territory of Pondicherry Puducherry 3 The Director of Health Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Services Puducherry SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
and K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
cad W.P. No.24012 of 2014 10.10.2014