JASSA RAM CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are directed against the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4.4.2013. By the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has allowed two Original Applications filed by 8 applicants with the following direction:-

(2.) THE first of these Writ Petitions bearing No.7118/2013, has been filed by Jassa Ram Choudhary and Sube Singh Yadav and the other Writ Petition No.7119/2013, has been filed by as many as 12 petitioners against Union of India and others. Registry of this Court has raised an objection about maintainability of the writ petitions contending that since the writ petitioners were not parties to the Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, these petitions at their instance are not maintainable.

(3.) SHRI S.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicants, has supported the objection citing judgment of Supreme Court in Rajeev Kumar and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others, (2010) 4 SCC 554, and contended that the Supreme Court in that case, in identical circumstances where the appellants before it were not party to the proceedings before the Tribunal and were merely allowed to intervene in the writ petition filed against the judgment of the Tribunal before the Delhi High Court, held that they were not competent to maintain the appeal against the judgment of Tribunal and that of the High Court. It is also contended by Shri Sharma that remedy for such persons as per the observations of the Supreme Court, is to approach the Tribunal under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Rules), 1987, by way of filing review petition. It was also argued that writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.7118/2013 did not challenge the order of Tribunal by which their applications for impleadment was not allowed and they were merely permitted to intervene. Learned Senior Counsel argued that an intervenor cannot be treated as necessary party. He can at best be considered a proper party.