UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAYA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application initially is directed against three orders, namely, first one is dated 1st February 1999 passed by a Division Bench, second one is dated 27th of August 1999 passed by a learned single member, being the Hon'ble Chairman and the last order is dated 10th November 2006, passed in a contempt application. The first two orders were passed in the original applications, being O. A. 172 of 1995 and O. A. 626 of 1995. At the admission stage, on 12th of June 2007, we made it clear that we are not going to examine the legality and validity of the two orders dated 1st February 1999 and 27th of August 1999 as those orders were passed on contest by both the parties. This application was admitted for hearing to examine legality and validity of the last order which was passed on a contempt application. Upon perusal of the order dated 10th of November 2006 we find that while exercising contempt jurisdiction, no punishment was imposed and merely some directions were given. However, whether such directions were lawful or not will be examined little later as Mr. Das submitted that such order is a nullity as this order is arising out of an order passed in connection with the second order dated 27th of August 1999. In order to appreciate properly, we are to recapitulate the facts briefly hereunder.

(2.) THE original application was decided by a Division Bench by an order dated 1st February 1999 when both the Members differed on one point whether the post held by the applicant is Ex-Cadre or not in order to release retiral benefit. On the same very order Administrative member held that it was Ex-Cadre while Judicial Member held otherwise. As such, the matter was sent to the Chairman for resolving the aforesaid differences.

(3.) MR. Das submits, drawing our attention to section 26 of the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)that this order of reference itself is invalid and illegal and the chairman had no jurisdiction to decide the matter in which there exists difference between two Members as the Division Bench did not formulate the points of their differences. According to him, formulation of points of differences on issue is sine qua non for taking up the matter by the Chairman either by himself or by sending the same to a Larger bench. Judicial Member, in the Division Bench, observed that the matter should be placed before the Larger Bench so it was not open for the Chairman to take it upon himself. As such, the order passed by the chairman whereby the dispute has been resolved in favour of the applicant is a nullity as such question of implementation of the same did not arise. Mr. Das, in support of legal proposition, has cited two decisions; one reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 (Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors.)and the other reported in (2004) SCC 759 (Ramphal Kundu v. Kunal Shanna ). The later decision has been relied on the point that if a thing is required to be done in accordance with a particular provision of law, the same must be done in accordance with that provision of law or not at all. Here order of reference has not been passed in consonance with the provision of section 26 of the said Act.