In a scathing judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) recently criticized the Union government and its own Registry for attempting to position the quasi-judicial body as merely an adjunct of the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). The CAT firmly rejected the argument that it must follow DoPT instructions in administrative and financial matters.
CAT Asserts Judicial Independence
The Principal Bench Member (J) RN Singh and Member (A) Tarun Shridhar made it clear that the CAT operates with jurisdiction, powers, and authority akin to other courts, except the Supreme Court, regarding various service matters. The bench emphatically stated, “We take strong objection to the contentions of the respondents that directions issued to Ministries and Departments of the Government are to be followed by the Tribunal.” They further condemned the notion that the Tribunal should surrender to executive control, highlighting it as a blatant disregard for constitutional principles.
The Argument Rejected
In a biting rhetorical flourish, the bench questioned, “And what does the counter reply state? That a judicial body which exercises powers of all Courts subordinate to the Hon’ble Supreme Court is under the jurisdiction of Central Government and requires its approval for appointment of a Stenographer Grade-D and further disbursal of his/her salary. Could it have been more outrageous?”
The CAT’s remarks came in response to applications filed by three stenographers against changes in their appointment terms and reduction of monthly pay. These stenographers, initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis through an employment exchange in 2012, were reappointed on a contract basis with a fixed remuneration in 2023. They challenged this decision, seeking regularization and associated benefits.
The Bench Criticizes Government’s Overreach
The Union Ministry and CAT’s joint response argued that the appointments, made by the CAT Chairman under the power of relaxation of Rules, faced objections from the Finance and Audit department for not adhering to DoPT instructions. The bench found this argument absurd, questioning if the PAO (Pay & Accounts Officer) held authority superior to the Hon’ble Chairman of CAT.
The bench observed that the decision to alter the stenographers’ appointment terms stemmed from “frequent objections raised by the PAO, CAT.” They noted the irony in the PAO’s objections leading to significant changes after more than a decade of service by the stenographers.
The Tribunal’s Stance on Judicial Independence
“We beg to disagree,” the bench asserted, refuting the argument that consulting DoPT does not compromise judicial independence. The Tribunal emphasized its creation under an Act of Parliament, not as a wing of the Government. The CAT underscored that its jurisdiction often covers matters traditionally handled by High Courts and lower courts.
The bench also criticized the Registry for filing a counter reply on behalf of both the Tribunal and DoPT, calling it a surrender of jurisdiction. “The constitutional principle of governance by the Rule of law underscores judicial review of administrative actions; here we are overturning the entire principle by subjecting a judicial body to administrative control of the government,” the bench stated.
The Impact on Judicial Independence
The CAT highlighted the irony of the government, a frequent respondent in employee cases, controlling the Tribunal’s day-to-day administration. The bench expressed discomfort with the situation, noting, “A functionary of the Government questions the decision of the Chairman who is a person possessing qualifications set forth in Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s observations on the separation of powers, the bench lamented that the position taken by the respondents relegates the Tribunal to just an adjunct of the DoPT.
A Verdict in Favor of the Stenographers
The bench found the stenographers had served for nearly 11 years with no adverse remarks, questioning why their case should be treated differently from other regularized employees. It allowed their applications, ordering their regular appointment from the initial date of appointment and called for a review of rules to safeguard judicial independence and dignity.
This ruling is a robust defense of the CAT’s judicial independence and a stern reminder to the executive to respect the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International
