RATI RAM Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have considered the pleas that are raised in these petitions. Even at the stage of issuing notice in WP (C) No. 7688/2002, the learned Single Judge had observed that the jurisdiction in this case rests with the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners have stated in paragraph 2(a) of the writ petitions that some persons have already obtained the benefits as sought for herein from different Central Administrative Tribunals.

(2.) Notice was issued on the petitions. While issuing notice, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench to decide as to whether or not the jurisdiction to decide these matters initially rests with the Administrative Tribunal. There is no dispute that in these matters initial jurisdiction is that of the Tribunal. It is only when a person is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal then only a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. The aforesaid issue was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge for our decision.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners states that there is no denial of the fact that the relief that is sought for in these petitions is subject matter pertaining to service matter and, therefore, the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to try and decide the present dispute. The petitioners rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Santokh Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 3728/1991 decided on 26th April, 1993.