View Full Version : Admission of Application in CAT

06-12-2010, 06:36 AM
The Rule 20/21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 as downloaded from the CAT website, is reproduced below for kind information:

20. Application not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted

(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances, -

(a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or

(b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.

(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial.

21. Limitation -

(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, -

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where

(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates ; and

(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court,

the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or , as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section(2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

One of the CAT Judgment prescribes the following regarding entertaining applications in CAT.

"Generally this Tribunal entertains applications for adjudication on merit only when, departmental remedies are exhausted, save in very exceptional cases. In the instant case, of course, except the age factor there is no extra-ordinary situation whereby the drill of exhausting departmental remedies should be exempted".

Some questions naturally arise in the academic interest.

(1) What are the `very exceptional cases' in which the requirement of exhausting departmental remedies is not insisted upon.

(2) What are the `extra-ordinary situation whereby the drill of exhausting departmental remedies should be exempted"

(3) How to exhaust departmental remedies and what are the time frame and what are the levels upto which the said departmental remedies are required to be sought for before moving towards filing an application before CAT?

The answers will be very helpful for those who intend to move to CAT on any grievance application in order to ensure completion of the pre-requisites.

Further, some doubts about `Cadre' and `Auxiliary category'.
What is meant by `Cadre' and How it is determined. Whether it is discipline-wise such as Administrative, Accounts, Scientific, Technical, etc.

What is meant by `Auxiliary'? Which are the posts will fall under this category. (For example, Auxiliary Nurse)

What is meant by same cadre and identical cadre respectively. Whether posts having identical pay scales (whether meaning same pay scales?) and what is meant by similarly situated personnel?

31-12-2010, 05:16 AM
"Thursday, September 18, 2008
Let appeals against tribunal order go straight to SC
J. Venkatesan

This proposal will ensure speedy justice, and save time and money for government servants

New Delhi: For speedy disposal of cases filed by government servants before administrative tribunals, the Law Commission has suggested that appeals be filed directly in the Supreme Court and not in the High Court.
Chandrakumar’s case

State and Central Administrative Tribunals were constituted pursuant to the 1985 Administrative Tribunals Act. As per this Act, appeals against the tribunal orders could be filed directly in the Supreme Court. However, after the judgment in L. Chandrakumar’s case in 1997, appeals would have to be filed first in the High Court concerned and then before the Supreme Court.

The Commission, headed by Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, in its report to be submitted to the Centre, has recommended to the government that it request the Supreme Court to refer the matter of filing the first appeal for adjudication by a larger Bench.

The report said it was necessary to reconsider the judgment in Chandrakumar’s case in the interest of Central and state government servants to achieve the object of the 1985 Act, to provide speedy and less expensive justice. “If this proposal [to reconsider the judgment] is taken up in the right perspective, it will reduce not only the heavy expenditure by way of fee, etc, to counsel but also the time.”

The Commission noted that the very purpose and rationale of the tribunals would be defeated if all cases had to go to the High Courts concerned again. In view of the delay in the disposal of the appeals in the High Courts, some States abolished the State tribunals.
Amendment will help

The Commission said that by an amendment to Article 227 (4) of the Constitution, it would be possible to include the Central Administrative Tribunal side by side with the Armed Forces Tribunal (which provides for direct appeal to the Supreme Court) so that appeals against tribunal orders could be filed in the Supreme Court. This would prevent explosion of cases in the High Courts.
An alternative

As an alternative, “if there is an impression that there has to be at least one appeal provided against the orders of the tribunal before the matter reaches the Supreme Court, an intra-court appeal, similar to the one provided in every High Court, can be provided under the 1985 Act itself.”
Create zones

The report said: “The decision of a single Bench can be challenged before a Bench consisting of three or more members.

“For this purpose, four zones, North, East, West and South, can be made where appeals from various Benches may be filed.

“After the decision by an appellate Bench, the matter can be taken to the Supreme Court.”

The Commission recommended to the Centre that it take up the issue with the Supreme Court in the larger public interest.

Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu


Employees may not be able to challenge CAT judgement in SC directly
NEW DELHI: Bad news is in store for government employees contesting matters relating to their service conditions in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as they may not be able to challenge the judgement in the Supreme Court.
Government employees not satisfied with CAT orders on their service matters will continue to appeal in High Courts as government’s plan to enable them approach the apex court directly has received a thumbs down from the top law officer.
Recently, the Department of Personnel had asked the Law Ministry whether the present system of CAT orders being challenged in High Courts be changed to fast track disposal of cases of government employees relating to their service conditions and employment rules.
The Law Ministry referred the matter to Attorney General Ghoolam Vahanvati who opined against the move saying a 1997 Supreme Court judgement on the issue should continued to be followed.
“As of now, the buck stops here (on the issue),” Law Minister M Veerappa Moily told PTI when asked to comment on Vahanvati’s opinion.
He said his ministry was trying to find a solution. “But I would not like to add anything more to it,” he added. When the CAT was established in 1985 by an Act of Parliament, its rules clearly stated that its judgements on service related matters of state and central government employees can only be challenged in the apex court.
While the same rules is in operation even today, a 1997 Supreme Court ruling held that judicial review is the basic feature of the Constitution and a High Court’s power on judicial review cannot be taken away.
After the judgement, appeals against CAT rulings were entertained in High Courts.
“The Armed Forces Tribunal Act has been borrowed from CAT. Appeals against Tribunal’s orders can only be challenged in the Supreme Court. But in CAT’s case, it has become a three tier system…the entire purpose of CAT has been defeated,” said a CAT functionary.
He said while CAT usually disposes off a case in six months, appeal in High Court often takes years.
“They pay Rs 50 as fee to move CAT, but they have to pay thousands of rupees in High Court…if the matter reaches Supreme Court, the time and cost involved is massive,” he said.
Source: Economic Times"

Meanwhile, I came across a Senior citizen(Pensioner)'s grievance in another discussion forum which is reproduced below:
"we are required to go to courts for getting interpretation in each and every individual case. We can only hope and pray that we are able to see the cases through from CAT to High Court to Supreme Court within our life time. Even after the judgement is pronounced by the apex court, one does not know how much time the Accounting Departments will take to revise PPO. I have lost all hopes of getting what is due to me in my lifetime".