UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEEP CHANDPANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which falls for decision in these petitions is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim of the respondents as against the petitioners Union of India and its officers in the Railway Department and consequently the High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. According to their case the respondents were engaged in the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway, Gwalior as casual typists on daily wages and their services were wrongly terminated. The respondents challenged the order by writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which have been allowed by the impugned judgment. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.

(2.) In pursuance of Article 323A of Constitution of India, the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was passed and the Central Administrative Tribunal, established under Section 4(l) thereof was available to the respondents in the present case. By clause (2) (d) of Article 323A the Parliament was authorised to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 with respect to the dispute, and complaints referred to in clause (1) and accordingly by Section 14 of the Act, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all Courts except the Supreme Court have been vested in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The question, therefore, is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could entertain the claim of the respondents who were, before, termination of their employment, engaged as casual servants of the Union of India.

(3.) The expression 'all Courts' mentioned in Section 14 (1) is comprehensive enough to include the High Court. If the subject-matter of he claim of the respondents is held to be covered by Section 14, it must follow that the High Court is not left with any jurisdiction to deal with the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, however, is that since the respondents were not holding any civil post under the Union of India and were engaged only on casual basis, the provisions of the Central Administrative Act were not attracted. Alternatively, it was suggested that after the termination of their service the relationship of master and servant ceased to exist, and they, therefore, are not covered by the Act. The respondents, in the circumstances, rightly knocked the doors of the High Court. We do not find any merit in this stand taken on behalf of the respondents.