INDIAN TELECOM SERVICE ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st petitioner is an Association of THE Indian Telecommunication Service Group-A Officers and the 2nd petitioner is one of its members. THEy filed O.A.No.465 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.3.2012 as well as the Memo dated 27.12.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent and seeking a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to take necessary steps for placing the Cadre Review Proposal of Indian Telecommunication Service before the Cadre Review Committee in accordance with the procedure envisaged in the Memo dated 14.12.2010. THE said O.A. was admitted and by order dated 26.4.2012 the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 was suspended.

(2.) WHILE so, the respondents 1 to 6 herein filed a Transfer Petition being P.T.No.114 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 6 of Central Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1987 seeking transfer of O.A.No.465 of 2012 along with O.A.No.69 of 2012 pending on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and also O.A.No.77 of 2012 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi pleading that all the said O.As. involved the same questions of fact and law and that they are filed with a common prayer to quash the proceedings of the Department of Telecommunications, dated 27.12.2011 for constitution of Surplus Cell Establishment. It is also pleaded that there is every likelihood of similar O.As. being filed before other Benches of the CAT at other States and for convenience of the parties and to avoid conflicting decisions by the different Benches, it is necessary that all the matters are heard together by the Principal Bench of CAT.

(3.) IN the light of the power so conferred under Section 25 of the Act, the entertainment of the Transfer Petition by the Principal Bench cannot be held to be without jurisdiction and the same has not been disputed even by the learned counsel for the petitioners.