Allowed

Union of India and Another v. P.K. Bhowmick and Another

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jul 2014WPS/4423/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The CHhattisgarh High Court held that the Permanent Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction to decide a dispute over railway employee retirement gratuity. The Court ruled that such disputes are strictly reserved for the Administrative Tribunal under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as they concern service matters.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed to the extent of declaring the Permanent Lok Adalat's order without jurisdiction and directing the respondent to approach the Administrative Tribunal.

Union of India and Another Vs P.K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

‘ / (’^)Czaa/

¶2

IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILAsPUR x— mRIT PETITION (s) No. 4414/} OF 2008

¶3

PETITIONERS

¶4

/1. Union of India, Through ’rhe General Manager, Soufh Eas’rer'n Cem‘ral Railways, Headquam‘er Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶5

. The General Manager, South ' Eastern Cen‘rral Railways, Hea’dquarfer Bilaspur, (C.6.)

¶6

RESPONDENT

¶7

/1. P.K. Bhowmick, son of La’re J'.C. Bhowmick, aged abouf 64 years, resident of House No.771/ Panchseel Nagar, EasT B.M.Y. Charoda, 490025

¶8

The Permanent & Confinuous Lok Adala’r, Durg (C.G.) ’ETTIN PIO UNDER ARTICLE 22627/2 OF T HE x

¶9

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶10

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARH} : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION IS)^{NO.4423OF2008}

¶11

PETIT’IONERS

¶12

Union of India^&Another

¶13

Versus

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

P.K'. Bhowmick^&Another

¶16

(Writ^{PetitionunderArticle226/227oftheConstitutionofIndia)} Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri^{PrashantKumarMishra,J.}

¶17

Present^:- Shri Abhishek^{Sinha,Advocateforthe} petitioners. Shri Siddharth^{Rathod,AdvocatefortherespondentNo.1.}

¶18

ORDER (OPEN^COURT) (Passed^{onthis3rddayofJuly,2014)}

¶19

Heard learned^{counseiforthe} parties.

¶20

¶21

Union of India^has preferred^thisWrit petition^{underArticle226/227of} I the Constitution of India chailenging the impugned order dated 19—8-2007 (Annexure^—P/1) passed by the Permanent^LokAdalat, Durg, whereby the said Court has allowedthe application of the. respondent^{No.1andhasdirectedthepetitionertomakepaymentof} ’death-cum-retirement gratuity^{ofRs.2,28,872/-alongwith} interest at the rate of^12% per^{annumoncompoundedbasis.}

¶22

Learned counsel^{appearingforthe} petitioners/UOI^{wouldsubmitthat} the respondent^No.1 is a retired^{employeehavingbeenretiredfrom} South East Central Railway on 30-4-2001 as Senior Section Engineer, Bhilai, therefore, the claim presented by him before the Permanent^{LokAdalatwasaservicematterwithinthemeaningand} for the purpose^{oftheAdministrativeTribunalsAct,} 1985 (for^short 'the Act, 1985’) and, as such, the Permanent Lok Adalat had no to entertain a dispute concerning^the service matter jurisdiction

¶23

¶24

¶25

of an employee who is or was in the service of the Central Government. 3. ln the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioners^wouldsubmit that under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for^{short’theAct,} 1987’) cognizance of cases could have been taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat before the dispute is brought before any Court. However, since in the present case the dispute was earlier raised by filing a civil suit in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class l, Durg, it no longer remain as a matter cognizable by the Permanent Lok Adalat, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated on'this count also. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that the Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered and shall have jurisdiction^{toentertainanydisputeconcerning} publicutility^services as defined under Section 22A (b) of the Act, 1987 and since the Railways comes within the definition of public utility services, the Permanent Lok Adalat had the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute and the impugned order does not suffer from any error ofjurisdiction. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears to this Court that under Section 28 of the Act, 1985 it is provided that on and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Service or post or service matters concerning members of any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post no court except the Supreme Court; or any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court Or other authority constituted'under the Industrial Dispute's Act, 1947 or any

¶26

other corresponding law for the time being in force, shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such'recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters.

¶27

'service Section 3 (q) of the Act, 1985 defines the word matters', which reads as under:

¶28

¶29

'service (q) matters', in relation to a person, means ali matters relating to the conditions of his service 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, as the case may be, of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government, as respects——

¶30

i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;

¶31

ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation;

¶32

iii) leave of any kind; iv) disciplinary matters; or

¶33

v) any other matter whatsoever;

¶34

Thus, on and from the date the Act, 1985 came into force and the CAT has been constituted for the areas from which the present case has arisen and judicial notice is taken of the fact that the Bench of CAT is functioning at Jabalpur with its sitting at Bilaspur also, the Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute by virtue of Section 28 read with Section 3 (q) of the Act, 1985. 8. There is no quarrel about the fact that the Railways provide public, utility service, however, the kind of service Railway provides is qua the person who is enjoying the service, however, it has no concern or

¶35

is. 51% n

¶36

co-relation with the reiationship between the Railways and its employees which is solely governed under the^{relevantservicerules} under which the concerned^{employeewasappointedandotherrules,} which governs payment of pension^or retiral benefits to him. Thus, the provisions of Section^{22CreadwithSection22A} (b)^of'theAct, _1^{987isofnoassistancetotherespondentNo.1.}

¶37

in the result, the^writ petition^{isallowedtotheextentindicatedabove.} However, the respondent^No.1 is at liberty to raise^{thedisputebefore} the jurisdictional CAT.

¶38

There shall be no order^astocosts.

¶39

Sdl—

¶40

Gowri

¶41

Prasha‘nt^KumarMishra Judge

Union of India and Another v. P.K. Bhowmick and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Another v. P.K. Bhowmick and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.G.Infrastructure Dev.Corporation Vs Niman Khalkho and Ors.

Shivchran Suryawansi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/s Dayalal Meghji And Company Vs Smt.kamla Bai And Ors.

Punit Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Neelanchal and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

U.K. Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.