Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 169 (CAL)

Lakshmikanta Bera v. Union of India

2015-02-24

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, SUDIP AHLUWALIA

body2015
JUDGMENT:- This writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 30th December, 2014 passed by a single member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. 350/01548/2014. The learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the Tribunal comprising of the administrative member alone cannot finally decide the application filed by the petitioner herein. Referring to Section 5(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the Bench of the learned Tribunal should consist of one judicial member and one administrative member and therefore, one administrative member alone had no authority to decide any case finally. In the present case, we find that the disputes raised by the petitioner regarding correction of date of birth at a belated stage should be decided upon considering the various earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and interpreting the Rules and/or Circulars as are applicable in this regard. Administrative member alone therefore, should not decide a case finally wherein the Rules and the Circulars issued by the department should be interpreted and/or explained apart from considering various other decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also this Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the administrative member alone is not competent to decide the grievances of the petitioner as raised in the application filed before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the impugned decision passed by the administrative member of the learned Tribunal only on the ground of maintainability, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the administrative member of the learned Tribunal alone. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the administrative member of the learned Tribunal and direct the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal to list the original application being O.A. No. 350/01548/2014 before a Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal comprising of one judicial member for the purpose of deciding the application de novo. Needless to mention that the Central Administrative Tribunal while deciding the application filed by the petitioner de novo in terms of this order will not be influenced by the earlier decision of the Administrative member and take independent decision upon considering the relevant records and hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel of the respective parties. Needless to mention that the Central Administrative Tribunal while deciding the application filed by the petitioner de novo in terms of this order will not be influenced by the earlier decision of the Administrative member and take independent decision upon considering the relevant records and hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel of the respective parties. Since a considerable time has already lapsed, we direct the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal to list the matter before the appropriate Bench in terms of this order without any further delay but positively within a period of two weeks from date. Let it also be on record that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the issues raised in the application on merits and all the points are left open for adjudication by the learned Tribunal. With the aforesaid directions, we allow this writ petition upon setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned administrative member alone. In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.