Gives 6 months to Chairman CAT to decide matter of promotions
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 5: A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice M R Shah and Justice B V Nagarathna has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Inspectors of 1998 batch of Armed wing of J&K Police against the judgment of the Division Bench of J&K High Court which had set-aside the judgment of full bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in the seniority matter of Inspectors of Executive and Armed wings of J&K Police.
The full bench of Central Administrative Tribunal comprising of Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, Bidisha Banerjee, Member (J) and A K Bishnoi, Member (A) while deciding SWP Kamal Sangra & Others versus Union Territory of J&K and Others in March 2021 had dismissed the three Transfer Applications challenging the promotion of Inspectors (Armed) J&K Police made by PHQ Order No. 2136 of 2005 dated 21.07.2005 and also for quashing of tentative seniority list of Inspectors (Executive, Armed) issued vide order dated 29.08.2013 and 23.11.2015.
The judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged in the Division Bench of J&K High Court by the Inspectors of Executive wing. A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Puneet Gupta while deciding the controversy over the promotion of 95 Executive and 98 Armed police, in March 2022, had set-aside the judgment of full bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal with the observations that the hearing by the full bench could not have been permitted on issues on which the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member were ad idem.
The judges said that DB is of strong opinion that the entire procedure adopted for adjudication of the disputes in the present petitions post the minor difference of opinion between the members of the tribunal was contrary to the procedure prescribed by law. It is settled that “if law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all.” The mandate of Section 26 of the Act nowhere authorized the Chairman to adjudicate upon an issue on which there was no conflict of opinion and assumed to itself the role of an appellate authority.
After hearing P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, Tushar Bakshi, AOR, Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate and Harshika Verma, Advocate, the counsels for Inspectors of 1998 batch Armed Wing and Gaurav Pachnanda, Senior Advocate, Sahil Tagotra, AOR, Sidharth Jain, Advocate and Nikita Jaitly, Advocate representing Inspectors of 1995 batch Executive wing, the bench of the Supreme Court said that the bench is in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on the procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. As rightly observed, once there was a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the matter was required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman and the third Member/Chairman was required to give his own decision upon such a reference. However, the matter was not required to be referred to the Full Bench.
“We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The High Court has rightly remanded the matter to the Tribunal and issued the directions”, the Supreme Court said.
The directions of the Division Bench of the High Court read: “Be that as it may, the judgment and order dated 31.03.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench. The points of difference expressed by the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member in its judgment and order shall be crystallized and a reference shall be made to the Chairman on such points of difference within 10 days’ from today. Upon such a reference being made on the points of difference, the Chairman, Tribunal shall proceed to decide the point or points of reference so referred in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act.”
“In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the dispute is with respect to the promotion and it is pending since long, we direct the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench to finally decide and dispose of the matter, on remand, and, as directed by the High Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order”, the Supreme Court said and directed all concerned to cooperate with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench to finally decide and dispose of the matter, on remand, within the time stipulated.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
