UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHADUR/BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No.1 joined Indian Postal Service in the year 1978 and was promoted to Junior Administrative Grade, Group A in the year 1986. As the respondent No. 1 was eligible for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade, his case was considered for such promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee along with other candidates for the vacancies for the year 1998-99 and 20u0-01 when the respondent No.1 was included in the zone of consideration. When the respondent No. 1 was not recommended for promotion. being aggrieved by the order dated 26th March, 2001 issued by the Director (Staff), Department of Posts, Dak Rhawan, New Delhi, the respondent No. 1 filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. The original application was contested and upon hearing was disposed of by the said Tribunal giving appropriate directions. Challenging the same. this writ petition was filed by the authorities who were respondents in the Tribunal.

(2.) Heard Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners herein and Mr. Bikash Kumar Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. At the outset, on behalf of the respondent No. 1 an objection was raised as regards absence of territorial jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the subject-matter of challenge before the Tribunal was entirely outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the matter was also heard and disposed of by the Tribunal at its Sikkim Bench and therefore territorial jurisdiction as regards the present writ petition is with the Sikkim High Court.

(3.) Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contended that it is true that no part of the subject matter in the proceeding before the Tribunal arose within the territoral jurisdiction of this Court but the subject-matter of this writ petition is different. It is stated that in the present writ petition, the challenge is against the judgment of the Tribunal which is admittedly Central Administrative Tribunal at its Calcutta Bench. It is further stated that the original application was initially filed in the office of the Calcutta Bench of the said Tribunal at Calcutta and thereafter not only the records of the case are lying with the office of the Calcutta Bench at Calcutta but the initial order was passed by Calcutta Bench of the said Tribunal sitting at Calcutta. It is contended by Mr. Bandhopadhyay that only because the final hearing took place and judgment was delivered at Gangtok by the Circuit Bench of Sikkim of the Calcutta Central Administrative Tribunal, the part of the territorial jurisdiction being within the territories of this Court at Calcutta, the writ petition is fully maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. Bandhopadhyay, not only relied on the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 but also on several rules of Administrative Tribunals Rules, 1987. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in the case of Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, reported in AIR 1976 SC 331 , U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikary Parishad Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1995 (4) SCC 738 , Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association Vs. Union of India, reported in 2001 AIR SCW 1 , Oil & Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu, reported in 1994 (4) SCC 711 , Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque, reported in AIR 1955 SC 233 , Union of India Vs. Ladulal Jain, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1681 and L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 : [1997(2) SLR I (SC)] .