M B MAJUMDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal purports to be a sequel of this Court's decision in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124. The petitioner contends that the decision in Sampath Kumar's case (supra) equates the Central Administrative Tribunal with the High Court and, therefore, its Chairman has to be equated with the Chief Justice of a High Court and the Vice-Chairman and Members must be equated with the sitting Judges of the High Court in all respects. It is contended that while the Vice-Chairman has been equated with sitting Judges of the High Court, the Members have not been so equated in their pay and other conditions of service. It is further contended that a distinction has been made in the conditions of service, particularly the pay and age of superannuation between the Vice-Chairman and the Members, which is arbitrary and, therefore, the Members also should be given the same pay as the Vice-Chairman and their age of superannuation should also be the same i.e. 65 years as that of the Vice-Chairman. It is urged that the judicial functions discharged by the Vice-Chairman and the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal are the same and, therefore, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" applies. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution is alleged on this basis.

(2.) Part XIV-A containing Articles 323-A and 323-B was inserted in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 enabling the setting up of Administrative Tribunals and Tribunals for other matters by legislative enactments.

(3.) The Central Administrative Tribunal has been constituted under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members-judicial and administrative. The qualifications for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen or other members are prescribed by Section 6 of the Act. Section 7 provides that the Vice-Chairman or, as the case may be, such one of the Vice-Chairmen as the appropriate Government may, by notification, authorise in this behalf, shall act as the Chairman in the event of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman for any reason whatsoever, or when the Chairman is unable to discharge his functions for any reason. Section 8 prescribes the terms of office of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member as five years from the date on which he enters upon his office with eligibility for re-appointment for another term of five years provided that no Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall hold that office after he has attained the age of 65 years and any other Member, the age of 62 years. Section 10 of the Act provides for the salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and other Members to be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 17 confers on the Tribunal the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But for this specific provision, the Tribunal would not have the power of the High Court in this behalf. Section 18 provides for distribution of business amongst the Benches of the Tribunal. Section 28 excludes the jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court or any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority, constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force in relation to matters over which the Tribunal has been conferred jurisdiction. Section 35 contains the rule-making power of the Central Government while Section 36 gives power to the appropriate Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and particularly, for the matters specified therein. The specified purposes for which the Central Government can make rules specified in Section 35(2)(c) includes the salaries and allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Members. The rules framed under the Act are to be laid before the Parliament. It is not necessary to give further details of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the provisions of which were considered at length in Sampath Kumar's case (supra) and now stand amended in accordance with the observations of this Court in that decision.