By Akanksha Sharma
Introduction
Tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution that is set up to deal with problems such as resolving administrative or tax related disputes. It performs a number of functions like adjudicating disputes, determining rights between contesting parties, making an Administrative decision and so forth.
Tribunal generally is any person or institution having an authority to judge or to determine claims or disputes.
Administrative Tribunals was set up by an act of Parliament, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It owes its origin to Article 323A of the constitution.
Article 323A states:
“Parliament may, by 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.”
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
The preamble of the Act states:
“An Act to 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 another authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”
The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides for three types of tribunals:
| Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) |
| State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) |
| Joint Administrative Tribunal (JAT) |
The Central Administrative Tribunal is responsible for adjudication of matters which are connected with recruitment and conditions of service of personnel in public service in India.
It has jurisdiction to deal with services matters pertaining to the Central Government employees or of any Union Territory, or local or other government under the control of the Government of India, or of a corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government.
The CAT was set up on 1 November 1985. It has 17 regular benches, 15 of which operate at the principal seats of High Courts and the remaining two at Jaipur and Lucknow. The Tribunal consists of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members.
The appeals against the orders of an Administrative Tribunal shall lie before the Divisional Bench of the concerned High Court.
What is the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal?
The CAT exercises Jurisdiction over all services matters concerned with:
- Members of all-India services.
- Persons appointed to any civil service of the Union or civil post under the Union.
- Civilians appointed to any defence services or posts related to defence.
- Employees of PSUs or public sector organizations were notified by the government.
The Tribunal has been given the power to exercise the same jurisdiction and authority regarding contempt of itself as a High Court. Its members are drawn from legal and administrative fields which include:
- Chairperson– The chairperson should be an SC judge or the Chief Justice of a High Court.
- Vice-Chairperson– The vice-chairperson should be of 62 years of age for a tenure of 5 years.
The CAT has 17 benches in country and 21 Circuit benches as well. Its principal bench deals with the matters of the Government of Delhi .The petitioner can either take help of a legal practitioner or can appear in person before the Tribunal.
As the CAT aims to provide speedy justice o the aggrieved persons it includes of Administrative Members and Judicial Members. The conditions of service of the Chairman and members are the same as applicable to a judge of High Court given by Administrative Tribunal Act, 2006.
The orders of CAT are challenged by way of writ petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution before respective High Court.
Case Laws
- M. Suresh Kumar And Ors. Vs Union of India (Uoi) And Ors.[1]
Promotion and distribution of job posts
In this case Counsel on both the sides were heard. The Tribunal here finds that “the so-called promotion as a result of redistribution of posts is not promotion attracting reservation.”.
It is also seen that it is case of upgradation on account of restructuring of the cadres, therefore the question of reservation will not arise. This Civil Appeal was dismissed.
The matter again came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Non-SC/ST Employees Association (Railway) Vs. A.K.Agarwal and Ors. Three Judges Bench. Here the division bench had held that reservation for SCs and STs was not applicable in the case of upgradation to all existing posts.
It was clarified that if as a result of re-adjustment having been affected any post is created then the principle of reservation would be application.
It was also said that present case was restricted only to the existing employees who were redistributed into different scales of pay as a result of this upgradation.
It appears from all the decisions for that if a result of re- classification on readjustment there is no additional post which are created and it is a case of upgradation then the principle of reservation will not be applicable.
- Union of India And Ors. Vs Rajiv Yadav, Ias and Ors.[2]
Central Government is the authority under the Indian Administrative Service
The Central Government is the authority under the Indian Administrative Service. The Central Government has laid down the broad principles of allocation called(Roster System).
This system provides that while allocating the SC/ST candidates to their home States vacancies shall be reserved for them in various cadres to the extent Reservation-Percentage has been provided in direct recruitment to the IAS.
This reservation was challenged by Rajiv Yadav, respondent in the appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. A full bench of the Tribunal allowed the application of Rajiv Yadav and held that no reservation can be provided for the SC/ST while allocating the members of IAS to various cadres.
This appeal by the Union of India is against the judgement of the tribunal.
Rajiv Yadav appeared in civil services examination and was selected with appointment to the IAS. He was allocated to to the Manipur and Tripura cadre. His representation for change of cadre to “Union Territories” was rejected by the Central Government. Then he challenged the order before Tribunal.
In compliance with the requirement and in terms of Article 16(4) [Nothing in this article shall prevent the state from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the state] of the Constitution of India 221/2% of the reserved candidates are recruited to IAS.
The categories are to be justly distributed amongst the States, but for the “Rooster System” it would be impossible for SC/ST candidates to be allocated to their home States. But the principles of cadre allocation, thus, ensure equitable distribution of reserved candidates amongst all the cadres.
Therefore, the Court allows the appeal by setting aside the judgement of the tribunal and dismisses the application filed by Rajiv Yadav before the Tribunal. The impugned judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been set aside and the principles of “cadre allocation” for reserved candidates have been upheld.
In view of judgement in Rajiv Yadav’s case this appeal by the Union of India has to be allowed and he was allocated in the Union Territory cadre.
- Sarojini Ramaswami Vs Union of India & Ors[3]
Judicial review is available to the concerned Judge against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is guilty of misbehaviour only prior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker
The petitioner here is the wife of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, a sitting Judge of Supreme Court of India. According to the petitioner, the remedy of judicial review is available to the concerned Judge against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is guilty of misbehaviour only prior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker – in accordance with Section 4(2) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 or latest till it is lid before parliament as required by Section 4(3).
To preserve the right of the Judge to seek judicial review of the finding of ‘guilty’ if any, in the report.
The important conclusion in this case is that the learned Judge is entitled to supply a copy of the report of the committee. Its concomitant would be that the learned Judge needs time to reflect upon to taking a decision and action. Necessarily, the committee is to be requested to withhold submission of its report for a reasonable time.
The Attorney General is also requested to apprise the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha of the order passed in this behalf and if necessary to extend the needed time to enable the committee to submit its report within that extended time. The writ petition is accordingly ordered but in the circumstances without cause.
- Union of India Vs Madras Telephone Sc & St Social[4]
Their seniority was determined according to their seniority in the cadre of Engineering Supervisors.
The application for clarification has been filed by the applicants pursuant to the liberty granted to them. The applicants are/were members of the Telegraph Engineering Service Class II.
Before coming into force of the Telegraph Engineering Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1966 framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Their seniority was determined according to their seniority in the cadre of Engineering Supervisors.
Firstly their seniority was determined according to their seniority in cadre but with the coming of new recruitment rules the method of determining seniority as changed. It was provided that the Engineering Supervisors must complete 5 years of service to be eligible for appearing in the departmental qualifying examination.
It was further observed that those who had qualified in the examination would rank en- block senior to those officials of the same year of appointment who qualified in subsequent examination. Therefore the matter of promotion shifted from the year of passing the examination to the year of appointment of the candidate concerned.
The observations made by the court laid down the principle for fixation of seniority by different benches of Tribunal.
Since, the rights of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has achieved finality, a subsequent judgement of a Court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders have attained finality.
- T.S. Thiruvengadam Vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India[5]
Petitioner denied pension after merging departments
The appellant was serving the Audit Department of Government of India. He was sent on Foreign Service to the Public Sector Undertaking Neyveli Lignite Corporation and was absorbed there. Retirement benefits in such cases were regulated by Memorandum dated November 10, 1960 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), New Delhi.
The appellant was in the service of the Central Government for a period of about 15 years. On the date of appellants permanent absorption in the public undertaking the retirement benefits were regulated by Memorandum.
The benefits of the revised terms and conditions of absorption as contained in the Government Memorandum dated June 16, 1967 was denied to the appellant on the basis that he was absorbed in the public undertaking prior to the date of coming into force of the said memorandum.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras. The Tribunal by its adjudication dismissed the application and rejected the claim of the appellant.
Denying the pensioner benefits to the appellant would be contrary to fairly play and justice. Assuming that the revised Memorandum is an incentive to attract Central Government employees to public undertaking.
Conclusion
The annual All India Conference of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was held in New Delhi on 16th February, 2020.
- The conference was presided over by the Union Minister for Law and Justice.
- Apart from central services issues, the CAT will soon have jurisdiction to handle disputes and other issues related to the non-central services in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir[6].
The Central Administrative Tribunal exercises jurisdiction only in relation to service matters. But what happening is that The Central Administrative Tribunal has 27 out of 64 posts lying vacant.
According to its official website, the sanctioned strength is 64 members- 32 judicial and 32 administrative members. The CAT which aims to speed up adjudication of disputes in matters of recruitment and service conditions for government officers is facing an acute shortage of members.
In this type of situation and shortage of members, there are only five members (four judicial and one administrative) for the principal bench .That bench where over 10,000 cases are pending with only the strength of nine members.
The conflict on rules began in 2017 when the government amended the Finance Act and introduced changes pertaining to the structure and organisation of all tribunals, including CAT. Since then two rounds of litigation have taken place in the Supreme Court over the legality of these rules.
The first took place in 2018 when 17 petitions were filed against the notification of the Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities Rules 2017.
On an assurance by Attorney General K.K. Vnugopal, the top Court on 4 January this year directed the Government to “expedite” the appointment of four posts in accordance with the 2020 rules, subject to the modifications ordered by the SC. However, three months later the appointments are yet to be made.
References
- M. Suresh Kumar And Ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) And Ors. 2006(3)SL J 164 CAT ↑
- Union of India (Uoi) Ad Ors. Vs. Rajiv Yadav, Ias And Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5018 OF 1994 ↑
- Sarojini Ramaswami Vs. Union of India & Ors 1992 AIR 2219 ↑
- Union of India Vs. Madras Telephone Sc & St Social Case Number: Appeal (civil) 4339 of 1995 ↑
- T.S. Thiruvengadam Vs. The Secretary To Govt. Of India, 1993 SCR (1) 1078 ↑
- Central Administrative Tribunal, Available at: drishtiias.com (Last visited on July 5th 2021) ↑