All the seats of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) are the same and its main bank is not allowed to dress with a higher quality, said the Uttarakhand Supreme Court. The tribunal decides on official matters of central government employees.
The Supreme Court also overturned the order of the main CAT bank in connection with the transfer of a plea held in its Nainital bank to Delhi, saying that “the main bank must not be allowed to be a usurper of power”.
After hearing the plea of Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian forest service official, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, before a case is transferred from one bank to another or from one court to another, stated certain criteria for transferring the case in mind.
Chaturvedi, who is stationed in Haldwani, filed an application with the court bank here in February of last year in which he challenged the classification process for civil servants.
The center had requested in October 2020 to transfer the case from Nainital County Bank to the main tribunal bank in New Delhi, saying “since the decision on a political decision by the central government would therefore only have nationwide implications”. the main bank is a suitable bank for deciding, among other things, the validity of the fundamental decision.
The main bank of the CAT had approved the plea of the center for the relocation of the case to Delhi by decision of December 4, 2020.
Annoyed by the order of the tribunal, Chaturvedi had moved the Supreme Court.
The court believes the reasoning in the CAT ruling is “legally untenable” and has put it aside while approving Chaturvedi’s petition under the orders of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Judge NS Dhanik dated October 23.
Citing a ruling by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said that a political decision could be challenged equally before any bank of the CAT.
The Supreme Court found that the Chaturvedi case “was allegedly transferred on the ground that such a matter would have its own implications for the functioning of the central government itself”.
Should Parliament, in its wisdom, be of the opinion that matters with nationwide impact or with major influence on the functioning of the central government should be transferred to the main bank, then Parliament would have passed a necessary provision, it said: with reference to the Administrative Court Act of 1985 .
“However, since the Parliament treated all chambers of the CAT equally, even cases with a national impact or with a major impact on the functioning of the central government can actually be decided by other chambers of the CAT. Such questions do not need to be dealt with and relegated to the main bank, “the order says.
Since all banks, including the main bank, are the same, such a wrong impression could not arise with the litigant, it said.
“Because the main bank must not be allowed to clothe itself with a higher authority that was never given to it by the law.
The Supreme Court said while considering the Union of India’s prayers to move the case from Nainital County Bank to the main bank in New Delhi, the tribunal should have considered the convenience of both parties.
A mere perusal of the contested order clearly shows that the tribunal failed to take into account the hardship the petitioner would face if the case were moved from the Nainital Circuit Bank to New Delhi, it said.
“A trip from Haldwani to New Delhi would also have a detrimental effect on his (Chaturvedi) physical health and mental state. Because he will continue to be under psychological tension while he has to travel from Haldwani to New Delhi,” it says in the Arrangement.
Therefore, the assessment of expediency is in favor of the petitioner, if the case should be negotiated by the Nainital district bank and decided by it, it said.
Chaturvedi, who works as the chief forest conservator in Haldwani, has questioned the 360 degree scoring system for joint secretaries and senior officials, as well as the recruitment of private sector specialists for central government posts through the lateral entry mode.