BINAYKIMT 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 paint raised by the learned counsel far the petitioner is that the appointment of Agarwal is in violation of Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act). Section 6 of the Act provides:

(2.) AGARWAL was appointed Vice -Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal by the order dated May 15, 1992. He had attained the age of 62 years an February 27, 1992. The precise argument is that having crossed the age of 62 years, Agarwal could not be considered far appointment as a Judge of the High Court under Article 217 (1) of the Constitution of India and as a consequence he became ineligible far appointment as Vice -Chairman of the Tribunal under Section 6of the Act. We have heard learned counsel far the parties. The paint raised by the learned counsel far the petitioner is not res integra. While interpreting Section 7 (3) (c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is similar to Section 6 of the Act, this Court in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Workmen held as under: