This order addresses service disputes involving the Government of NCT of Delhi. The court held that such disputes must be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as per the precedent in L. Chandra Kumar.
Petitions not dismissed but transferred for decision to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~18 and 19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PARVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aman Panwar, Advocate.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathy, ASC with Mr. Rizwan, Advocate.
SHOEB ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Abdul Jamal Nasir, Advocate with Mr. Mohd. Zubair, Advocate, Mr. Zameer Ahmed, Advocate and Mr. Mohd. Salman, Advocate with petitioner in person.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Ms. Shruthi Parasa, Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R % 09.12.2016 1. Petitioners were employees of Government of NCT of Delhi
and were employed for teaching in government schools. Disputes of
W.P.(C) Nos.4088/2016 & 6729/2016 page 1 of 3
employees of Government of NCT of Delhi with the Government of NCT of Delhi have to be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi as Government of NCT of Delhi is included in the list of institutions disputes of which with its employees have to be decided by CAT, and which is the court of original jurisdiction as per para 99 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261. Para 99 of this judgment reads as under:-
“99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323A and 323B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where
page 2 of 3
W.P.(C) Nos.4088/2016 & 6729/2016
they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.” (underling added)
behalf of the petitioners, these petitions are transferred for decision to CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Parties to appear before the Registrar of CAT on 22nd December, 2016. Registry to ensure that files of these cases are available to the Registrar of CAT on the date fixed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 09, 2016 Ne
page 3 of 3
W.P.(C) Nos.4088/2016 & 6729/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether disputes between Government of NCT of Delhi and its employees fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Whether the High Court can adjudicate service disputes involving the Government of NCT of Delhi instead of CAT.
Whether High Court writ jurisdiction is ousted in service disputes under Article 323A of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
PARVEEN KUMAR
SHOEB
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
