BINAY KANT MANI TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the appointment of D. K. Agarwal to the office of Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of Agarwal is in violation of S. 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act). Section 6 of the Act provides "a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Vice-Chairman, unless he is

(2.) Agarwal was appointed Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal by the order dated May 15, 1992. He had attained the age of 62 years on February 27, 1992. The precise argument is that having crossed the age of 62 years, Agarwal could not be considered for appointment as a Judge of the High Court under Art. 217(1) of the Constitution of India and as a consequence he became ineligible for appointment as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal under S. 6 of the Act.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not res integra. While interpreting S. 7(3)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is similar to S. 6 of the Act, this Court in Atlas Cycle Industries Limited v. Their Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1100 held as under (at p. 1104 of AIR)