SC agrees to hear Centre’s plea against Uttarakhand HC order on plea by IFS officer

PTI, Feb 21, 2022, 6:55 PM IST

The Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear the Centre’s plea challenging the Uttarakhand High Court verdict which had set aside an order of the principal bench of CAT at New Delhi transferring to itself the application filed by an IFS officer before the Nainital circuit bench of the tribunal.

The apex court also stayed the proceedings before the Nainital bench of the tribunal.

A bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna issued notice to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer, on whose plea the high court had delivered the October last year judgement, and others on the Centre’s plea. The IFS officer had earlier filed an original application before the Nainital circuit bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that Uttarakhand High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the chairman of CAT’s principal bench at New Delhi transferring the case from the Nainital bench to the principal bench.

After the bench said it was issuing notice on the plea, Mehta requested that the order be stayed otherwise the Nainital bench would start hearing the matter.

“In the meantime, the proceedings before the Nainital bench are ordered to be stayed,” the apex court said.

The IFS officer had filed an original application before the Nainital bench of the CAT seeking directions, including for quashing the present system of 360-degree appraisal being used in the empanelment of officers at the level of joint secretary and above in the central government.

He had also sought to restrain the concerned authority from filling up the posts of joint secretary or equivalent rank and also posts above in rank of joint secretary in the central government, through contract system, in future.

During the arguments on Monday, Mehta told the top court that the question before the apex court is about the territorial jurisdiction of the high court.

He said an original application was filed before the Nainital bench raising several grounds which touch upon the policy framed by the Central government.

Mehta said the Centre had applied to the principal bench of CAT at New Delhi seeking transfer of the matter from the Nainital bench to the principal bench.

He said the principal bench transferred the matter from the Nainital bench to New Delhi.

Mehta told the bench that only the Delhi High Court will have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the challenge to the order of the principal bench at New Delhi. The solicitor general said a similar issue had arisen before the apex court in the matter of former West Bengal chief secretary. He referred to the January 6 judgement of the apex court which had set aside the Calcutta High Court verdict quashing an order of the CAT principal bench to transfer an application by former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandopadhyay from Kolkata to the New Delhi bench.

During the hearing, the bench referred to section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act which deals with the power of the chairman to transfer cases from one bench to another. The apex court observed that it may consider the larger question of what are the powers of the chairman of the principal bench and what are the guidelines for exercising the powers.