- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 18 July 2023
- Bench
- V.Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 3372/2023
Judgment
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. JULY 18, 2023/R
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: July 18, 2023 + GOVINDRAJU R G ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A. K. Behera, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amarendra P. Singh, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-1 & R-2. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vanya Bajaj, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral) CM APPL. 36094/2023 1. This is an application seeking early hearing of the writ petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 3. Writ petition is taken up for hearing and the application stands disposed of. 4. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated March 06, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal' in short) in O.A. No. 367/2023, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that it did not have the jurisdiction. Relevant parts of the conclusion of the Tribunal in this regard are in paragraph Nos. 16 to 18, which we reproduce as under: "16. In view of the aforesaid, we have to see as to whether the refusal of grant of NOC for extension of deputation of the applicant for 6th year started from 24.11.2022 and/or his permanent absorption under the Respondent No.3 by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is connected with his membership of a combatised cadre of the SSB or not? As noted hereinabove, once the applicant is admittedly a member of a combatised cadre of the SSB, i.e., the armed force of the Union, refusal by the competent authority amongst the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuance of NOC for his absorption under the Respondent No.3 cannot be construed not to be connected with the membership of the applicant of a combatised cadre of the SSB, the armed force of the Union. It would be evident from the Full Bench Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Satyendra Narayan Pandey (supra), answer ‗No' to the reference before the Full Bench is for the reason that dispute raised had nothing to do with the membership of the applicant therein of the armed force of the Union. However, in the case in hand, we are of the considered view that the issue raised relates to membership/service matter of member of the armed force. The definition of the expression ‗service matters' has been considered by the Full Bench in the Judgment under reference which is as under:- ―3.(q). ‗service matters' in relation to a person, means all matters relating, to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, as the case may be, of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government, as respects – (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever;‖ 17. Therefore, in our considered view the aforesaid Order/Judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal does not help the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant rather the same supports the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondent nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the present OA deserves to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the applicant to seek the remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 18. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs." 5. Mr. A. K. Behera, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is working in the SSB but he is seeking appointment / absorption on a civil post of Caretaker in Centr
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.