& Ors vs Sourendra Nath Biswas & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 6878 Cal

09.10.2023
Item No.26
Court No.11
Avijit Mitra
                         WPCT 122 of 2023

               In re: An application under Article 226 of the
               Constitution of India;
                                And

               Steel Authority of India Limited, IISCO Steel Plant
               & ors.
                          - Versus -
                     Sourendra Nath Biswas & anr.

               Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee,
               Ms. Sweta Mukherjee
                                ...for the petitioners
               Mr. Gautam Banerjee,
               Mr. Sujit Kumar Ghosh
                                ...for the respondents

Mr. Amal Kumar Datta ...for the Union of India

The present writ petition has been preferred

challenging an order dated 22nd March, 2023 passed

by the learned Tribunal in the original application

being O.A. 350/01967/2021.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that

the applicant/respondent no.1 herein was an

accountant in the Indian Iron and Steel Company, a

subsidiary of Steel Authority of India (in short, SAIL).

Challenging an order of dismissal from service, the

respondent no.1 preferred a writ petition being WP

No.18717 (W) of 2005 which was heard on diverse

dates and disposed of by a judgment dated 7 th May,

2010 directing the authorities to reinstate the

respondent no.1 with imposition of a punishment of

'stoppage of increment with cumulative effect'.

Challenging the said judgment, the writ petitioners

preferred a mandamus appeal which was dismissed for

default on 20th February, 2014. The restoration

application filed about three years thereafter was also

dismissed on 24th September, 2021. In the midst

thereof, the respondent no.1 retired on 30th November,

2020. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 preferred a writ

petition inter alia praying for payment of all the

retirement benefits pertaining to the period from the

date of dismissal till the date of delivery of the

judgment dated 7th May, 2010 with extended pay

scale. In the said writ petition, initially an order was

passed on 9th August, 2021 directing the petitioners

herein to compute the amount which is payable to the

respondent no.1. A calculation report was prepared

and by an order dated 24 th November, 2021 the writ

petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the

Central Administrative Tribunal for the service

benefits. Pursuant thereto, the original application was

filed and the same was disposed of by the order

impugned in the present writ petition.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for

the petitioners submits that the judgment dated 7 th

May, 2010 passed in WP No.18717 (W) of 2005 is

without jurisdiction inasmuch as in terms of a

notification dated 31st March, 2010 under Section

14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the

Central Government specified 15th April, 2010 as the

date on which the provisions of Section 14(3) shall

apply to the organizations incorporated in the said

notification wherein SAIL appears at serial no. 201.

The principle of jurisdiction is fundamental to the

administration of justice and lack of jurisdiction

renders the order to be a nullity. The learned Tribunal

glossed over the said issue and did not return any

finding on the same and such infirmity warrants

interference of this Court. In support of such

argument reliance has been placed upon the judgment

delivered in the case of Kiran Singh & ors. Vs. Chaman

Paswan & ors. reported in AIR 1954 SC 340.

Per contra, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate

appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that the

writ petition being WP 18717 (W) of 2005 was filed in

the year 2005 and was heard on diverse dates. A

perusal of the cause title of the judgment would also

reveal that it was heard on 13 th April, 2010 and 29th

April, 2010 and the judgment was delivered on 7 th

May, 2010. The writ petition was pending for a period

of about five years and at no juncture the jurisdiction

point was urged. Even in the mandamus appeal

preferred by the petitioners the point of jurisdiction

was not urged. The mandamus appeal was dismissed

and the judgment dated 7th May, 2010 thus attained

finality.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and considered the materials on

record.

Indisputably, the writ petition challenging the

order of dismissal was filed in the year 2005. The same

was heard on diverse dates and finally disposed of on

7th May, 2010. The point of maintainability was neither

urged in the writ petition nor in the mandamus

appeal. The notification under Section 14(2) of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was issued years

after the writ petition being WP No.18717 (W) of 2005

was entertained. The judgment dated 7th May, 2010

had also attained finality after dismissal of the appeal

preferred against the same by the petitioners herein.

In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal rightly

observed that it cannot sit in judgment over the

judgment and order dated 7 th May, 2010 passed in WP

No.18717 (W) of 2005. The question of maintainability

of the petition being in the nature of a preliminary

contention needs to be addressed at the inception of

the proceedings. The petitioners did not raise the

question of maintainability in the writ petition

preferred in the year 2005 nor in the appeal preferred

in the year 2010. Till date, the respondent no.1 had

not been disbursed the benefits directed to be paid by

the judgment dated 7th May, 2010.

It is well known that a decision is an authority

for what it decides and not what can logically be

deduced therefrom. Even a slight distinction in fact or

an additional fact may make a lot of difference in

decision making process. The judgment upon which

reliance has been placed by the petitioners, in our

opinion, is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the

writ petition was entertained five years prior to the

notification.

The learned Tribunal, upon dealing with all the

factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do

not find any error, least to say any patent error of law

in the order impugned. The same does not suffer from

any substantial failure of justice or any manifest

injustice warranting interference of this Court.

In view thereof, no interference is called for in

the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly,

dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon

compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)