Delhi High Court
Bhanu Pratap Singh Tanwar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors. on 8 December, 2021
$~27 (2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08.12.2021
+ W.P.(C) 12829/2021
BHANU PRATAP SINGH TANWAR AND ORS ......Petitioners
Through: Mr Pradeep Dahiya, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Central
Government Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
1. On 15.11.2021, we had indicated as to, what was problematic with the
impugned order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in OA No. 3913/2017, from which the present
petition arises.
1.1 For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the said order dated
15.11.2021 is extracted hereafter:
"1. The petitioners had approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal (in short „the Tribunal‟) with a grievance that they had not
been granted the benefit of Senior Time Scale with effect from
01.01.2017, in terms of various Office Memorandums issued by the
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), in this behalf.
1.1. The petitioners claim to be Indian Revenue Service officers,
belonging to the 2013 batch.
2. The respondents, it appears, took the position that the aforesaid
benefit was not granted, in cases where there was functional
upgradation.
2.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that, the stand taken by the
respondents is erroneous.
3. Besides this, we may note that, on 27.10.2020, the Tribunal passed
the following order in O.A. No.3913/2017:
"OA is dismissed. Reasons would follow."
3.1. This order was passed by a bench comprising Mohd. Jamshed,
Member (A) and Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman), while the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12829/2021
Digitally Signed By:PREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:12.12.2021
22:56:51
impugned order, which is also dated 27.10.2020, whereby reasons
have been furnished has been passed by Justice L. Narasimha Reddy
(Chairman) and Ms Aradhana Johri, Member (A).
3.2 It appears to be a case where one bench heard the matter while
another furnished reasons for the decision in the O.A.
4. Issue notice.
4.1. Mr. Piyush Gaur, who appears for Mr Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3.
4.2. On steps being taken, notice shall issue to respondent no. 2, via
all permissible modes, including e-mail.
4.3. In addition, service will be effected on the standing counsel for
respondent no. 2.
5. List the matter on 25.11.2021."
2. Mr Ripudaman Bhardwaj, who appears on behalf of the respondents,
cannot but accept that, one Bench of the Tribunal i.e., comprising Mohd.
Jamshed, Member (A) and Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) heard the
matter, and the other Bench of the Tribunal i.e., consisting of Justice L.
Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and Ms Aradhana Johri, Member (A) furnished
the reasons.
2.1 To our minds, in an adjudicatory process the person(s) who hear an
aggrieved party must decide and render reasons. Concededly, this hasn't
occurred in the instant case; one Bench rendered the decision while the other
Bench gave the reasons.
2.2. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
sustained.
3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.10.2020, is set aside.
3.1. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for de novo hearing.
3.2. The petitioners will have the liberty to move the concerned Bench, for an
expedited hearing in the matter.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12829/2021
Digitally Signed By:PREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:12.12.2021
22:56:51
4. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
DECEMBER 8, 2021 /tr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12829/2021
Digitally Signed By:PREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:12.12.2021
22:56:51
