Summary
An officer challenged before the Nainital Circuit Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal the appraisal system and contractual appointments at Joint Secretary level; the Chairman transferred his application to the Principal Bench at New Delhi under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the Uttarakhand High Court set that transfer aside. In the Union's appeal, the Solicitor General argued on L. Chandra Kumar and Alapan Bandyopadhyay that only the Delhi High Court, where the Principal Bench sits, could entertain such a challenge, while the officer urged that Article 226(2) confers jurisdiction wherever part of the cause of action arises and that Alapan Bandyopadhyay needs reconsideration. Finding the issue of public importance affecting many employees, the Supreme Court referred it to a larger Bench.
Issues
- Whether a challenge to an order of the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 transferring an application to the Principal Bench can be entertained only by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Principal Bench sits, or by any High Court within whose territory part of the cause of action arises under Article 226(2).
Provisions considered
- Article 226(2), Constitution of IndiaThe officer contended that after the Fifteenth Amendment any High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises, irrespective of the seat of the authority, and that L. Chandra Kumar should not be read as conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court where the Tribunal sits. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 5.13, 5.16)
- Section 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985The Chairman transferred the original application from the Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench on the ground that the challenge to the empanelment procedure affected the functioning of the Central Government; the High Court held no provision requires policy challenges to be heard only by the Principal Bench. (¶¶ 3.2, 3.3, 3.5)
Held
- The Union relied on Alapan Bandyopadhyay, which following paragraph 99 of L. Chandra Kumar held that all decisions of Tribunals, including transfer orders under Section 25, are subject to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls; the officer submitted that this reading constricts Article 226(2), forces employees posted across the country to litigate in Delhi, and requires reconsideration. (¶¶ 4, 4.1, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.12, 5.17, 5.18)
- Having regard to the importance of the issue, the effect of the introduction of Article 226(2), the Law Minister's statement when it was introduced, and the large number of employees affected, the question of the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to decide a challenge to an order of the Chairman of the Tribunal at the Principal Bench should be considered by a larger Bench. (¶ 6)
Result
Matter referred to a larger Bench; Registry directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest.