VIRENDER KUMAR BAKSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in these petitions is as to whether this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 103 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Constitution, can entertain the writ petitions pertaining to those employees who are performing their duties in connection with the affaris of Union of India or in connection with the affairs of Corporations/Societies/Authorities, who stand mentioned in various notifications issued under Section 14(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One such notification is C.S.R. 7418(6), dt. 17th Dec, 98.

(2.) WHAT is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the respondents is that as the Central Administrative Act has been made applicable to whole of Union of India including the State of Jammu and Kashmir, therefore, so far as those employees who are performing their duties in connection with the affairs of Union of India or Corporations /Societies /other authorities enumerated in the notification, referred to above shall have to pursue their legal remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act. According to the learned counsel whatever view was expressed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kuldip Khuda v. Masud Ahmed Choudhary and ors,. 1994 J&K LR 25 stands disapproved by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Subhas Sharma, (2002) 2 JT (SC) 568 : (2002 Lab IC 1085). It is submitted that in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 's case (supra), it has been held that the Administrative Tribunals Act applies to all categories of Central Government and other employees referred to above. Notwithstanding the above decision given by the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan's case, it is urged : - i) That the judgment in question would not apply to an employee who is yet to acquire the status of a servant or a civil servant i. e. the process prior to a person being inducted would not be covered; ii) That the bar, if any, is to the entertainment of the petition and this bar would not apply when inter -locutory orders are passed.

(3.) THE other question is as to whether a person applying for the post seeking to join service when he has not actually joined the service would also have to approach the Tribunal and the dispute would fall within the purview of Central Act. This be examined.