Union Of India vs Prem Chand Deshantri
2022 Latest Caselaw 11681 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 746/2022

1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry Of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi 110066

3. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi 110066

4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Rajasthan, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Zonal Office, Nidhi Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 302005

5. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commssioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Zonal Office, Nidhi Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur 302005

----Appellants Versus Prem Chand Deshantri S/o Late Mr. Ranglal Deshantri, B-31, Aashirwad Nagar, University Road, Near New Keshav Nagar, Udaipur - 313001

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

20/09/2022

The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred by the

appellant UOI for assailing the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by

learned Single Bench, turning down the preliminary objection

raised by the appellants (respondents before the learned Single

Bench) regarding maintainability of the writ petition.

(2 of 5) [SAW-746/2022]

It may be stated that the writ petitioner is employed in the

Provident Fund Department of Government of India. He filed the

writ petition aforesaid before the learned Single Bench of this

Court alleging that the Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal

was not available/not functioning at the relevant point of time and

thus, there was no option with the writ petitioner but to file the

writ petition, in this Court for raising his service dispute.

It may be stated here that immediately upon receiving notice

of the writ petition in the year 2018 itself, the respondents filed an

application raising a preliminary objection regarding

maintainability of the writ petition in the year 2018. The said

application came to be rejected by the order dated 27.04.2022

which is assailed in the intra-court appeal.

Learned counsel Shri Khileree submitted that the learned

Single Bench was unjustified in rejecting the application by the

impugned order observing that the writ petition could not be

thrown out on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. He

submitted that the remedy available to an employee in All India

Services to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in

relation to a service dispute is not an alternative remedy but is

rather a statutory remedy provided under the Central

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act of 1985'). Shri Khileree submitted that the petitioner was

wrong in making the assertion in the writ petition that the Bench

of Central Administrative Tribunal was not available/not functional.

Shri Khileree drew the Court's attention to the bench-wise list of

Chairperson/Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal

which indicates that Judicial Member Smt. Jasmine Ahmed was

posted at the Jodhpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal

(3 of 5) [SAW-746/2022]

from 24.12.2012 to 07.08.2018. The said tenure was further

extended from 03.07.2018 to 07.08.2023. Shri Khileree placed

reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs Parma Nand reported in

AIR 1989 SC 1185 and urged that jurisdiction of tribunal to

interfere in the disciplinary matters/service disputes of Members

of All India Services is a statutory remedy and not an alternative

remedy. He also relied upon the orders passed by learned Single

Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP

No.5192/2020 (Prahalad Kumawat Vs. All India Institute of

Medical Sciences & Anr. decided on 09.09.2020) wherein,

sustaining a similar objection, the learned Single Bench permitted

withdrawal of the writ petitions and gave liberty to the writ

petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for

redressal of their grievances.

Faced with this situation, Shri Mardia submitted that rather

than relegating the petitioner to file a fresh original application

before the Tribunal, the Registry of this Court may be directed to

transfer the file of the writ petition to the Tribunal and the

petitioner would thereafter, submit a proper application in the

prescribed format so that the tribunal can adjudicate upon the

issues raised in the writ petition.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

impugned order.

There is no dispute on the proposition that the jurisdiction to

decide the issues raised in the writ petition filed by the respondent

lies exclusively and statutorily with the Central Administrative

Tribunal. Learned Single Bench, rejected the application filed by

(4 of 5) [SAW-746/2022]

the appellant (respondents in the writ petition) regarding

preliminary objection of maintainability of the writ petition by

observing that as the writ petition had been entertained long

back, it would not be in the interest of justice to throw it out on

the ground of alternative remedy. We feel that this observation is

erroneous on the face of the record. Firstly, the application raising

preliminary objections was filed by the respondents immediately

after being put to notice of the writ petition. It is a different

matter that the same could not be taken up and decided for nearly

four years. Adjudication of service disputes of the employees in All

India Services/Civil Services governed by the Union of India, is a

statutory remedy provided under the Central Administrative

Tribunal Act, 1985 which cannot be termed to be an alternative

remedy.

The plea raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that the

Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal was not functional has

not been supported by any reliable material. Contrary thereto,

Shri Khileree has shown to the Court, the position of posting of

Judicial Member in the Jodhpur Bench which clearly shows that the

Judicial Member aforestated was posted at the Jodhpur Bench

from 24.12.2012 and continues to hold the said post till date.

In this background, we are of the firm view that the writ

petition filed by the respondent (writ petitioner) was not

maintainable and the preliminary objection raised by the

respondents deserves to be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned

order dated 27.04.2022 is reversed. In the interest of justice, we

hereby direct that the writ petition No.7261/2018 (Prem Chand

Deshantri Vs. Union of India & Ors.) preferred by the petitioner

shall be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal for

(5 of 5) [SAW-746/2022]

adjudication of the issues raised therein. The writ petition shall be

treated as disposed of from this Court. The petitioner shall be

required to file proper pleadings in the prescribed format once the

file is received by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed in these

terms. No order as to costs.

                                   (FARJAND ALI),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    31-Sudhir Asopa/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)