TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of this Court, the approach made to the High Court for the first time by these appellants in respect of their service disputes over which C.A.T.[Central Administrative Tribunal] has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great respect, fell into an error by allowing the appellants to treat the High Court as a Court of first instance in respect of their service disputes, for adjudication of which C.A.T. has been constituted. The grievances of the appellants in this appeal are that they were not made parties in proceedings before the Tribunal. But in the impleadment application filed before the High Court it was not averred by them that they were not aware of the pendency of the proceeding b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an impleadment application in the Delhi High Court for being impleaded as respondents in Writ Petition No.19103-04 of 2008 filed by Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Others before the High Court whereupon the High Court by an order dated 23rd April 2008 allowed them to intervene and further allowed them to make submissions at the time of hearing of the writ petition. They were also given liberty to file affidavits. 3. Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble High Court, these appellants filed affidavits. After the High Court passed its impugned judgment dated 14.11.08 they have filed these appeals assailing the said judgment. 4. At the outset of their arguments this Court wanted learned counsel for the appellants to satisfy this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the vacancy position as on 1st January 2004 in the manner indicated in the High Court judgment within eight weeks from date. 8. However, while answering the objection on their locus standi, the appellants referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others - (1997) 3 SCC 261 and in particular to paragraph 99, page 311 at placitum f g of the report and contended that in view of the law declared in Chandra Kumar (supra), they can come before the High Court and raise their grievances against the judgment of C.A.T. as their interests have been affected by that judgment even though they were not parties to the proceedings in which the said judgment was rendered. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. 13. On a proper reading of these two sentences, it is clear: (a) The Tribunals will function as the only Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. (b) Even where any challenge is made to the vires of legislation, excepting the legislation under which Tribunal has been set up, in such cases also, litigants will not be able to directly approach the High Court `overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. 14. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on it appears that they were aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It was therefore, open for them to approach the Tribunal with their grievances. Not having done so, they cannot, in view of the clear law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Chandra Kumar (supra), approach the High Court and treat it as the Court of first instance in respect of their grievances by `overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. The C.A.T. also has the jurisdiction of Review under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. So, it cannot be said that the appellants were without any remedy. 17. As the appellants cannot approach the High Court by treating it as a Court of first instance, their Special Leave Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
