Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Krishan Lal Dogra vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 October, 2024
Author: Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Bench: Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Serial No. 08
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
SWP 2148/2012
IA(1/2012[3453/2012])
Krishan Lal Dogra. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Masooda Jan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE.
ORDER
31.10.2024
01. The record reveals that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 17th October, 2024, has framed a question, whether this Court
has the jurisdiction to deal with the service related dispute involved in the
present petition or is required to be adjudicated by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bench, Srinagar.
02. In pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, Mr.
Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, places
reliance upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case titled
"Mohammed Ansari vs Union of India & Ors" reported in "(2017) 3
Supreme Court Cases 740", a perusal whereof reveals that the jurisdiction to
hear and decide the grievances of the GREF personnel relating to their terms
and conditions of service or alternative service matters, lies with the High
Court and not the Central Administrative Tribunal. Operative portion of the
judgment supra for facility of reference is reproduced below:
"34. From the aforesaid, the legal position that emerges is that
AFT shall have jurisdiction (i) to hear appeals arising out of
courts martial verdicts qua GREF personnel. To this extent
alone AFT shall have jurisdiction. At the same time, if the
punishment is imposed on GREF personnel by way of
departmental proceedings held under the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 the same cannot be agitated before AFT; and (ii) AFT
shall have no jurisdiction to hear and decide grievances of
GREF personnel relating to their terms and conditions of
service or alternatively put "service matters".
35. At this stage, it is necessary to recapitulate that during the
pendency d of the matter before the High Court, the Central
Administrative Tribunal had passed the final order on 5-11-
2012 in favour of the appellant, Be that as it may, the Tribunal
does not have the jurisdiction to deal with an issue of
upgradation or the nature of lis raised by the appellant before it.
In the absence of lack of inherent jurisdiction to deal with the
issue, the said judgment is a nullity. It has no existence in law.
It is well settled in law that the judgment passed is a nullity if it
is passed by a court having no inherent jurisdiction. The decree
to be called a nullity is to be understood in the sense that it is
ultra vires the powers of the court passing the decree and not
merely voidable decree.
36. In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal and concur
with the view expressed by the High Court that it only has the
jurisdiction to deal with the controversy raised by the appellant.
The challenge was by the Union of India and its functionaries
to the order dated 18-6-2012 passed by t the Tribunal
negativing the preliminary objection raised by the Central
Government as regards the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Thus,
the grievance agitated by the appellant has really not been
addressed by any competent forum. His grievance deserves to
be dealt with in accordance with law. In view of the obtaining
situation, we grant liberty to the appellant to approach the High
Court for 9 redressal of his grievances within three months
hence. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter, if
filed, on its own merits and not throw at the threshold on the
ground of delay and laches. There shall be no order as to costs".
03. Mr. Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid case, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the service
related disputes pertaining to GREF Personnel and the Central
Administrative Tribunal lacks the inherent jurisdiction to hear and decide the
service matters relating to GREF employees.
04. Ms. Masooda Jan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents also fortified the same view, as has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case and submits that this Court has
jurisdiction to hear and decide the service related disputes involved in the
present case.
05. I have perused the material on record as also the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court supra and I am of the considered opinion that in the
light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court
has jurisdiction to hear the service related disputes pertaining to the GREF
employees and not the Central Administrative Tribunal. The question
framed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17th October,
2024 is answered accordingly.
06. List this case for consideration on 10th December, 2024.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
31.10.2024
"HAMID"
