B CHIRANJIVI RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners allege that they were admittedly employees of the Zilla Parishad. An application was moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal with regard to certain matters relating to their service. The said petition having been dismissed on merit a writ petition was moved before this Court. The Division Bench by an order dtd. 12/12/2000 had set aside the order of the tribunal and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with the provisions of law and in accordance with the observation made therein in terms of the said order. The learned Tribunal had decided the matter once again. It is this order which has since been challenged in this writ petition. In the said order dtd. 15/2/2001 passed in O. A. No. 153/AN/99 the learned Tribunal had found that the petition before the learned Tribunal was not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners in absence of any notification under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the said Act. Thus, the petition was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not aware as to whether any notification has been issued under Sec. 14 sub-sec. (2) of the said Act in which the provisions of the said Act could be attracted to the case of the petitioners. But he contends that by reason of the order of remand the learned tribunal is bound to consider the same on merit since the learned Tribunal was conferred with the jurisdiction by the said order. He relies on a decision in the case of Nandlal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1986 Rajasthan 157. Relying on the said decision he contends that in case there is an order of remand by the superior Court even if there is any infirmity in the order still then, the same cannot be questioned by the Court, to which it is remanded, in view of Articles 141 to 144 of the Constitution of India in relation to a direction of the Apex Court. Therefore, by reason of the order of remand passed by the High Court the learned Tribunal is equipped with the jurisdiction to decide the question on merit and cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that unless the learned Tribunal has jurisdiction it cannot assume it. The High Court cannot confer jurisdiction even by way of remand. He then contends that the remand is an open remand and the learned Tribunal was directed to consider the case in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Therefore, unless the petitioners came under the purview of the Act, their case cannot be decided within the provisions of the said Act. Alternatively, he contends that If the said Act does not confer jurisdiction upon the learned Tribunal to adjudicate a dispute raised by the petitioners in that case, the learned Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction by reason of an order of open remand. He also seeks to distinguish the decision of the Rajasthan High Court on the ground that it relates only to a question to decide the case on remand. But it does direct that even when there was absence of jurisdiction the Court is supposed to enter into the merits of the case on being remanded. On these grounds therefore, he contends that this writ petition is not maintainable and as such, no interim order, as prayed for by the counsel for the petitioners, cannot be entertained.