Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 427 (ORI)

MANJUBALA DEO v. UNION OF INDIA

2018-04-18

S.N.PRASAD

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.N.Prasad, J - This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to disburse all the service benefits of her late husband including the family pension along with interest @18% per annum. 2. Grievance made by the petitioner is against the Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines and the Rourkela Steel Plant, the functionary unit under the Steel Authority of India Limited. This Court, at the outset, has raised a question to the learned counsel representing the petitioner that in view of the notification dated 15.4.2010 issued by the appropriate Government in exercise of power conferred under section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Learned counsel for the petitioner, by raising his voice, has submitted that this Court can entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even though there is alternative forum, he has referred the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 . This Court, on examination of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has found that the said judgment has been delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the content of entertaining a writ petition even on the ground of availability of remedy of appeal against the order passed by the original authority if without jurisdiction or contrary to the statutory rule or it infringes fundamental rights or the order has been passed in exercise of mala fide intention. This Court is of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vRegistrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others will not be applicable in entertaining this writ petition since here it is not a case wherein the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the original authority even if alternative remedy of appeal is available rather it is a case where question of invoking original jurisdiction of the Court is involved. 3. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has came into force by virtue of the Section 46 of the Constitution(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 wherein after Part XIV of the Constitution, Part XIVA was inserted which relates to Tribunals. 3. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has came into force by virtue of the Section 46 of the Constitution(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 wherein after Part XIV of the Constitution, Part XIVA was inserted which relates to Tribunals. In the said inserted Part XIVA Article 323A stipulates that Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government. Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 contains a provision conferring jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal which relates to matters of recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services. Section 14(2) the Central Government has been conferred with power to come out with notification, apply with effect from such date the provisions of sub-section(3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations or societies owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation or society controlled or owned by a State Government. 4. 4. So far as amendment under Article 323A of the Constitution of India which fell for consideration in the case of L.Chandra Kumar vs- Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 whereby and where under the original Act conferring power to approach before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to modify the said amendment by holding therein that the power conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the basic structure of the Constitution and the High Court is Court of record and highest judicial body in the State, hence any order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal if directly go to the Hon'ble Supreme Court then it will lead to change in the basic structure of the Constitution of India by creating forum at Central Administrative Tribunal giving power conferred to the High Court by the Constitution under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence it has been laid down therein that the High Court although will have no administrative control over the Central Administrative Tribunal but in exercise of power of judicial review order passed by the Tribunal will be maintainable before Division Bench of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby, by virtue of the amendment Article 323A of the Constitution of India the Central Administrative Tribunal has been conferred with the power of original jurisdiction as per the provisions of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence it is the question of availability of a forum having its original jurisdiction and as such according to my considered view, the judgment rendered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others will not be applicable here, since the said judgment relates to entertaining the writ petition in some cases even if forum of alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and the said judgment is not related to exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to strengthen his argument, is not applicable. 5. Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v- Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to strengthen his argument, is not applicable. 5. It need to refer herein that the appropriate Government has come out with notification dated 15.4.2010 whereby and where under the Steel Authority of India Limited has been brought under the purview of Section 14(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hence on or after 15.4.2010 any grievance of the employee working under the Steel Authority of India Limited will be adjudicated before the Central Administrative Tribunal having its jurisdiction. There is no dispute about the fact that the Rourkela Steel Plant is an unit under the control of the Steel Authority of India Limited and as such the employee working under the Rourkela Steel Plant will also come under the fold of the notification dated 15.4.2010. Here in the instant case the petitioner is ventilating her grievance for getting post death benefit of the deceased husband who happens to be working under the Rourkela Steel Plant, as such the forum, by way of Central Administrative Tribunal, is available but bypassing the same the writ petition has been filed which is, for the reasons stated above, cannot be held to be maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable, hence dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach before the Central Administrative Tribunal having its jurisdiction for ventilating her grievance, if she so wishes. The writ petition is disposed of. Final Result : Disposed