Delhi High Court: Jyoti Singh, J., held that ‘service matter’ concerning the persons working in various Central Government Hospitals under the Ministry of Railway to be covered under the ambit of Section 14 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hence directed to approach Central Administrative Tribunal.
The instant petition was filed by the Indian Railways Medical Laboratory Technologists Association seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) The Members of the Petitioner Association be granted the benefits of 7th CPC at par with the counterparts/Railway Medical laboratory Staff working under the same Nodal Ministry and w.e.f. from the very day it got implemented i.e. 01-01-2016 and w.e.f. the date when the said recommendations were implemented by the Govt. of India, Respondent no. 2 and all the arrears etc. be paid to them as expeditiously as possible preferably in 3 months time from the very day it got implemented i.e. w.e.f. 01-01-2016.
(b) The benefits of the 7th CPC recommendations should be given with effect from the very day it got implemented i.e. 01-01-2016 with all consequential benefits including the consequences that entail therewith;
(d) The Costs of the present petition be awarded to the Petitioners and against the Respondents.”
Bench on perusal of the facts of the case expressed that the subject matter of the petition is a ‘service matter’ and the petitioner association comprises of persons working as Lab Assistants, Lab Technician, Lab Superintendents and Chief Lab Superintendents working in various Central Government Hospitals under the Ministry of Railway which is covered under the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Hence, the court stated that the petitioner is amenable to the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal.
Further while concluding, the Court added that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition in light of Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Constitution Bench decision in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
Therefore, the petition was disposed of.[Indian Railways Medical Laboratory Technologists Assn. v. Ministry of Railways, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1637, decided on 17-12-2020]
Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court [* * *]1) in relation to—
(a) 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;
(b) all service matters concerning—
(i) a member of any All-India Service; or
(ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or
(iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence,
and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation 2[or society] owned or controlled by the Government;
(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation 3[or society] or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.
4[Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to “Union” in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union Territory.]
Advocates who appeared before the Court:
For the Petitioner: Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Gaurav Yadav and Chitwan Godara, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Jagjit Singh, Sr. Panel Counsel for R-1.
Vivek Goyal, CGSC for R-2.