Amit Dhaka v. Union of India and Ors.

(41) AMIT DHAKA..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Mandavi Pandey, Mr. Vikas Tripathi, Mr. Girraj Sigh Yadav, Mr. Sanjeet Mishra and Ms. Shreya Pandey, Advs.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shubham Prasad, GP for UOI Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, SPC for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON’BLE MR.

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 55476/2023 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 14055/2023

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated June 1, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for short) in Original Application No.936/2021 (‘OA’, for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA on the ground that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the OA W.P.(C) 14055/2023 Page 2 as the petitioner is an employee of Sashastra Seema Bal (‘SSB’, for short) which is a paramilitary force and as such not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. We are unable to accept the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, inasmuch as the case of the petitioner as noted by the Tribunal itself is for his absorption in the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Principal Accounts Office, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and the same is clear from prayer (b) which we reproduce as under: “(b) To issue appropriate directions to the respondents to absorb the applicant to the post of Accountant in CCAS cadre at par with other similarly situated persons who have been absorbed vide aforesaid order dated 22/02/2021 (Annexure-A-2).”

3. The absorption being under the Union and in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which relates to jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the same contemplates jurisdiction to include recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian. Hence, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the OA.

4. Though, the Tribunal has relied upon its judgment in the case of Govindraju R.G. v. Union of India & Ors., OA. 367/2023, which OA was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant therein was similarly working in the SSB and as such, it does not have W.P.(C) 14055/2023 Page 3 jurisdiction, suffice to state, the said judgment has been set aside by this Court vide order dated July 18, 2023, in W.P.(C) 3372/2023, whereby the OA was remanded for a decision on merits. The said judgment is applicable to the facts of this case.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha v. Union of India & Ors., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal

(C) No.16963/2023, which is an SLP filed against the judgment dated

July 28, 2023 in WP. No.9407/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay wherein according to the counsel, the Bombay High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal dismissing the OA filed by Lt. Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha, on the ground of jurisdiction. We note, the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP by stating, as the petitioner therein has been repatriated to his parent office, the impugned order need not be interfered with. According to her, in this case also the petitioner has been repatriated and hence the order be not interfered with.

6. We are unable to agree with the submission. The Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Anjan Kumar Sinha (supra), no doubt, has not interfered with the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner therein has been repatriated to his parent department, but in this case the Tribunal has dismissed the OA on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction and not on the ground that the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department.