Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Referring to Section 3(q) ATA, Mr. Bhushan submits that the recognition of an association of employees would not fall within the ambit of „service matters.‟ Invoking the rule of ejusdem generis, he submits that when read as a whole, the provision makes it clear that the words "any other matter whatsoever" occurring in Section 3(q)(v) have to be read ejusdem generis with the matters specified in the preceding Clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 3(q) ATA. His submission is that the phrase "all matters relating to the condition of his service" appearing in the main portion of Section 3(q) has to be read as being controlled by the words "as respects" preceding the enumeration of the specific matters set out in Section 3(q)(i) to (iv). The „other matters‟ referred to in Section 3(q)(v) would have to be of the same genus as the matters referred to in Section 3(q)(i) to (iv) ATA. According to him the addition of word „whatsoever‟ at the end of Section 3(q)(v) would make no difference to this position. Mr. Bhushan places reliance on certain passages from the book Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Mr. G.P. Singh. Referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Babli v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2002 Lab IC 4 which in turn relied upon in the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rasila Ram (2001) 10 SCC 623, it is submitted that the question whether the government employees were entitled to retain government accommodation allotted during their service tenure can bring a dispute before the CAT was answered by this Court in the negative. The said decision has recently been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Surjeet Sangwan 2009 INDLAW DEL 2943 where it was held that the CAT did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a demand raised by an Estate Officer to recover damage/rent in relation to premises which was the subject matter of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 („PP Act‟). Specific to the issue of recognition of associations/unions, Mr. Bhushan relies upon a judgment of the Full Bench of the CAT in Indian National NGOs v. Secretary Ministry of Defence [reported in Full Bench Judgments of CAT Volume III at page 128] which in turn has been followed by the CAT at Lucknow in All India PO and Rms Accountants Association v. Union of India 1999 INDLAW (CAT) 179. He points out that the Full Bench of the CAT held that notwithstanding the question of recognition of Associations being subject matter of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules 1959 [„CCS (RSA) Rules‟] as modified by the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 the issue of recognition of an Association would not come within the ambit of „service matters‟ under Section 3(q) ATA. On the rule of ejusdem generis, Mr. Bhushan places reliance on In Re: Sir Stuart Samuel (1913) AC 514 and Brownsea Haven Corporation Ltd. v. Poole Corporation (1958) 1 All ER

18. It is a moot question whether a simpliciter issue concerning recognition of an association of employees in terms of CCS (RSA) Rules can be entertained by the CAT as a „service matter‟. Such a question was answered in the negative by the Full Bench of the CAT in Indian National NGOs v. Secretary Ministry of Defence. However, as far as the present case is concerned, there should no difficulty for the CAT to examine the validity of the impugned order dated 8th September 2011 insofar as it denies the office bearers of the Petitioner Associations preferential treatment in the matter of their postings and transfers. It is a composite question that the CAT would be called upon to answer when approached by the Petitioner Associations.