TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ 2

2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL VIS-A-VIS PARTIES............................................................. 2

2.1. MEMBERS OF THE ALL INDIA SERVICES ........................................................................ 2

2.2. PERSONS BELONGING TO THE CIVIL SERVICES OF THE UNION OR HOLDING ANY CIVIL
POSTS UNDER THE UNION ........................................................................................................ 4

2.3. PERSONS APPOINTED TO CIVIL POSTS CONNECTED WITH DEFENCE OR CIVILIANS IN

DEFENCE SERVICES ................................................................................................................. 7

2.4. PERSONS EMPLOYED IN ANY LOCAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIES ...................................... 8

2.5. PERSONS EMPLOYED IN ANY CORPORATION OR A SOCIETY ......................................... 10

3. EXCEPTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 10

3.1. MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES OF THE UNION .............................................................. 10

3.2. MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE JUDICIARY .................................................................... 13

3.3. MEMBERS OF THE SECRETARIAL STAFF OF THE LEGISLATURES .................................. 15

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 15

1|Page
1. ABSTRACT

Part XIV-A of the constitution provides for the tribunals. The provision was added through 42nd
Amendment Act, 1976. Article 323A and 323B provide for Administrative Tribunals and
Tribunals related to other matters respectively. The Parliament is empowered to establish
administrative tribunals for the adjudication of disputes and complaints with respect to
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts 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 of any corporation owned
or controlled by the government.1 The Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985 enacted by the
Parliament authorizes the central government to establish central administrative tribunal and the
state administrative tribunals.2 Section 14 specifies the categories of persons in respect of whom
and the subject-matters in relation to which (only), the jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends.
However, section 2 on the other hand excludes the operation of the Act, and consequently bars
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of certain categories of persons specified therein. The
jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal therefore has been defined in positive as well as in negative
terms by the Act. This paper is an attempt to analyze the provisions of these two sections so as to
determine the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal vis-a-vis parties.

2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL VIS-A-VIS PARTIES

The following categories of civil servants fall within the scope of jurisdiction of the Central
Administrative Tribunal-

2.1.MEMBERS OF THE ALL INDIA SERVICES

Article 312 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to create by law one or more all-India
services, common, both, to the Union and the States but, before such an enactment is passed it is
necessary that the Council of States must have passed a resolution supported by not less than
two-thirds of the members present and voting. The Council of States may pass such resolution if
it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest to create such a
service. However, under clause (2) of Article 312 it was provided that the two all-India services,

1
Article 323A, Constitution of India.
2
I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (9th Ed., 2017).

2|Page
namely the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service existing at the time of
the commencement of the Constitution, shall be deemed to have been created by Parliament by
law to be enacted under this Article.

Originally, the All India Service Act provided only for two services only, namely, the Indian
Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service. But, consequent upon the passing of a
resolution by the Council of States on December 6, 19613, the Act was amended in 1963 to
provide for the creation of three more services in the fields of ‘forestry’ ‘medicine and health’
and ‘engineering’. Of these, only one, namely, the Indian Forest Service was constituted with
effect from July, 1966. It may be relevant to point here that the Administrative Reforms
Commission of India has also advocated for the creation of more all India services to ensure
uniformly high standards of administration in all States in key activities, to provide for
interchange of experience between States and the Centre, and to obtain, where needed, the
experience of State administration at the decision-making levels at the Centre.4

It may be noted that an all-India service is different both, from the Union and the State services.
Article 309 of the constitution provides for the creation and regulation of the Union and State
services by laws passed by the appropriate legislatures and, until such laws are enacted, by the
President or the Governor, respectively. The Union and State services belong, exclusively to the
respective Governments. An All-India Service is created and regulated by a law enacted by the
Parliament under Article 312 of the constitution.5 Such a service is common to both, the Union
and the States. Persons recruited to All-India Services are initially allotted different state cadres
to serve under the respective State Governments. But, at any subsequent stage they may be
posted to serve under the Central Government as well. No State Government has the powers to
make rules governing the conditions of service of such officers.6 Although the State
Governments do exercise a limited administrative and disciplinary control over these officers

3
Rajya Sabha Debates, Volume XXXVI Col.1305, dated 6.12.1961.
4
"Report on Personal Administration" (1969) 7-8.
5
Under Schedule VII, List I, Entry 70 the Parliament exercises exclusive legislative power 1n this regard.
6
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. M.S.Farooql, AIR 1972 S.C. 1738.

3|Page
while they are serving under them, for, at that time they are servant of the State Government
concerned,7 yet these powers are subject to the ultimate control of the Central Government.8

An officer of the All-India Service, whether serving at a particular time, under the Centre
Government or a State Government, is, now, subject to the jurisdiction of the Central
Administrative Tribunal in respect of any dispute or controversy relating to his recruitment or
other service matters.

2.2.PERSONS BELONGING TO THE CIVIL SERVICES OF THE UNION OR HOLDING ANY CIVIL
POSTS UNDER THE UNION
The two expressions "Civil services of the Union" and "Civil post under the Union" are also used
in Article 31 of the constitution wherein certain procedural safeguards are laid down, which
apply in matters of punishments of way of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. But, neither
the Constitution of India nor the Administrative Tribunals Act, has defined these terms. Hence,
the true meaning and scope of these two terms have to be gathered in the light of the various
pronouncements, made in this regard by the different courts and tribunals.

It may, however, be said, at the very outset, that, these terms include, in the first place, all the
regularly constituted civil services and posts governed by the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19679 , and specified in the Schedule. However, this
enumeration is not exhaustive for the purposes of invoking the provisions of Article 311 of the
Constitution or for determining the ambit and scope of section l4 (l) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act. While explaining the nature, meaning and scope of the 'Civil Service of the
Union', in the context of section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the full Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal observed thus:

"The expression 'civil service of the Union1, 1n our opinion, has very wide amplitude. On an
examination of clause (a) 1n section 14(1), we find that the word 'civil service has been
emphasized in contradistinction to the term 'defence service'. The second aspect of the matters is
that in the term 'civil service' both 'civil' and 'service' have not been spelt with capital 'C and

7
Powers in this behalf are conferred on the State Government under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1969
8
D.D.Surf v. A.K.Barren (1976) 1 SCC 967.
9
These Rules, made by the President under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution, classify the various
services and posts under the Union, Into four broad groups.

4|Page
capital 'S'. It, therefore, means that all those civilian employees who are in the service of the
Union or are rendering service to the Union will be eligible to invoke the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal...."10

It may be pointed that the cardinal word in 'civil service', or for that matter, in ‘defence service’
is the ‘service’. The word 'service' as defined in section 3(p) of ‘the Act’ means service within
or outside India. Since this definition does not help, in any way, in the present context, it
becomes necessary to give it an ordinary dictionary meaning signifying employment. 'Civil
Service under the Union', thus, encompasses all kinds of employment, under the administrative
control of the Central Government, whether covered under any of the regularly constituted Civil
Services or not.

Initially, there existed some doubt regarding the true position and status of a casual employee or
labour vis-à-vis jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In the light of the Supreme Court observation, in the
case of State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra,11 that a casual worker does not hold a civil post, the
Tribunal, in a few cases,12 declined to exercise jurisdiction over casual employees on ground of
lack of jurisdiction. Whereas, in certain other cases13 the Tribunal assumed jurisdiction and
entertained cases relating to casual employees by ignoring the Supreme Courts observation as
merely an obiter dicta not amounting to a binding precedent. The controversy was finally settled
when the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in Rehamt Ullah’s14 case, held that
although a casual labour (in Railways) does not hold a civil post yet15, he is in the service of the
Union and hence being a member of the civil service of the Union such a person is covered under
the provisions of section l4 (l) (a) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is competent to exercise its
jurisdiction over cases relating to casual workers employed in the various departments of the
Central Government establishment and the Railways, irrespective of the fact whether they have
or have not acquired the temporary status16 within the meaning of Central Civil Services

10
Rehmat Ullah Khan and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1989 (2) SLJ 293 (CAT), at p.302.
11
State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra, AIR 1967 5.C. 884; 886.
12
Anurudh Singh v. Union of India, ATR 1988 (2) 405 (CAT); Khageshwar Nayak v.Union of India, 1986 (4) SLJ
343 (CAT).
13
D.M.S.Employees' Union v. Union of India, AIR 1988 (1) 183 (CAT).
14
Rehmat Ullah Khan and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1989 (2) SLJ 293 (CAT), at p.302.
15
State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra, AIR 1967 5.C. 884; 886.
16
Which entitled him to get certain pensionary and other benefits as also to be considered for regular appointments
on priority basis, depending upon nature and scope of relevant rules.

5|Page
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 or under any other similar rules framed by the concerned
department or establishment.17

As regards the meaning of the term ‘civil post under the Union’ the Principal Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, after reviewing the various judicial decisions in this regard,
formulated the following tests which may be applied for the purpose.

i. Is the post created by the Government and may be abolished by the Government?
ii. Are conditions of services of such posts prescribed, regulated and controlled by the
Government?
iii. Are the duties attached to the post connected with the affairs of the State?
iv. Are the salary and other emoluments attached to the post paid out of the Revenues of the
State?18

These tests are, however, neither exhaustive nor inflexible and it is not as if unless a post stands
all the above tests, it cannot be treated as a civil post under the Union. The presence of one or
more conditions, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, would make a post,
office or employment as a post under the State. Yet, in any case, there must exist the relationship
of master and servant between the State and the person concerned or in other words the employer
must be the State.19 Evidently, the word 'state', in the present context, does not bear the wide
meaning given to it under Article 12 of the constitution. As such the employees of any local or
other authorities or of any corporation or a society have been held20 as not holding civil posts
under the Union even when such as authority, Corporation or society constitutes 'State' within the
meaning of Article 12. Employment under the State, for the present purposes, refers to
employment under the Government, in any capacity whatsoever. But, if in a given case the fact
of Government employment is not established, the person cannot be held as occupying a civil
post under the Union. For instance, a licensed postal agent who is governed by a specific contract

17
Union of India v. Basant Rai
18
Narender Gupta v. Union of India, 1986 (2) SLJ, 213 (CAT).
19
Ibid.
20
Narender Gupta v. Union of India 1986 (2) SLJ 213 (CAT); A.K.Mukerjee v. Secretary, N.C.E.R.T., 1986 (3) SLJ
114 (CAT); J.R.Purl v. Union of India, 1987 (2) SLJ 310 (CAT); V.K.Singh v. Union of India, 1986 (1) SLJ 124
(CAT).

6|Page
and is paid on commission basis, has been held as not appointed to a civil post.21 He is only an
agent and there does not exist the master-servant relationship between him and the government.

2.3.PERSONS APPOINTED TO CIVIL POSTS CONNECTED WITH DEFENCE OR CIVILIANS IN

DEFENCE SERVICES
Broadly speaking, there are two categories of civil servants under the Government. One class
consists of those who are working on the defence side and the other is that which is engaged on
the civil side of the administration. Both the categories of civil servants fall within the purview
of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. No doubt, the provisions of the Act do not apply to any member of
the Neval, military or defence forces or any other armed forces of the Union22 but, by virtue of
the provisions of section 14(1) persons appointed to any civil post connected with defence or in
defence service are amendable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In Ananda Prakash Singhal v.
Union of India23 the Central Administrative Tribunal entertained an application filed by a person
who held the post of an engineer in the Military Farms Branch of the Army and posted at Head
Quarters, Southern command, Pune. It was held by the Tribunal that a civilian appointed in the
defence service or to a post connected with defence, by such appointment does not become a
member of the armed forces of the Union.24 However, in another case25, it was held by the
Tribunal that section 14(1) of the Act does not vest jurisdiction with regard to grievance of a
member of the defence forces (holding any post whatsoever) but, in regard to a civilian filling a
post connected with defence forces.
Thus, distinction was drawn between a civil post in defence service and a civil post connected
with defence or defence services; or between the civilians connected with defence or defence
services and the members of defence services as such. It was observed by the Tribunal that if a
person is to answer the description of a civilian, in the context of section 14(1), he must not
himself be a member of the defence forces.26 Once a person is found to be member of the

21
(1987) 3 ATC 719, 723 (CAT-Mad).
22
Section 2(a).
23
Ananda Prakash Singhal v. Union of India, 1991 (1) SLJ 137 (CAT).
24
Ibid.
25
Kunju Krishanan Pillai v. Union of India, 1986 (3) SLJ 194 (CAT).
26
Ibid.

7|Page
defence services or of an armed force, such a person cannot, at the same time, be a civilian filling
a post connected with defence or defence services.27

2.4.PERSONS EMPLOYED IN ANY LOCAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIES

As already observed the employees of any local or other authorities (which have their
independent existence apart from the Government) do not belong to the civil services of the
Union (or a state) nor do they hold any civil post under the Union (or a state) and, as such, they
do not the fall within the scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunals. The Act28 , however, empowers
the Central Government to extend the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, inter
alia, to the employees of any local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the
control of the Government of India, provided such local or other authority is not controlled or
owned by a State Government. For this purpose the Central Government must issue a
notification specifying the date (s) with effect from which the employees of a particular authority
shall fall within the purview of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Government notification may
specify different dates in respect of different authorities.29
It may be observed that Article 12, which defines the word ‘state’ for the purposes of Part III of
the constitution, wherein the Fundamental Rights are set out, also uses the expression ‘all local
or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India’.
Therefore, the judicial decisions expounding the meaning of these words in Article 12 will be
relevant for construing the true connotation of these words in section 14(2) of the Act.

In K.S.Ramamurthy Reddiar v. Chief Commissioner, Pondichery and another,30 it was observed

by the Court that the expression 'local or other authorities', used in Article 12, refers to and
includes two broad categories of such local or other authorities: (a) local or other authorities
within the territory of India; (whether under the control of the Government of India or the
Government of various states and even autonomous authorities which may not be under the
control of Government at all); and (b) local or other authorities under the control of the
Government of India, (whether situated within or outside the territory of India).

27
Thus, even persons holding the posts of cooks, chowkldars, laskars, barbers, carpenters, mechanics, boot-makers,
tailor,etc. In the defence services would not be treated as civilians for the purposes of section 14(1).
28
Section 14(2).
29
Section 14(3).
30
K.S.Ramamurthy Reddiar v. Chief Commissioner, Pondichery and another, AIR 1963 SC 1464.

8|Page
In the light of the Provision of Article 367 of the constitution, which provides that the General
clauses, Act, 1897 shall apply for the interpretation of the constitution, the courts have, for
purposes of Article 12, adopted31 the definition of the term 'local authority' given in the Act.
Thus, on the basis the definition given in the General Clauses Act, a municipal corporation or
committee, notified area committee32, panchayat33, port trust34, etc. have been held as local
authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

The expression "other authorities" has been given a very wide meaning, in recent years, by the
courts. In R.D.Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India35, it was held by the Supreme
Court that if a body is an agency or instrumentality of Government it would be regarded as an
'authority' within the meaning of Article 12, irrespective of the fact whether it is a statutory
corporation, a company or even a registered society. In determining whether a particular body is
an agency or instrumentality of the Government the court has laid down certain guidelines which
may be taken into consideration. These are: (i) total or near total state funding, (ii) existence of
deep and pervasive state control over management and policies, (iii) functional character being
government in essence, (iv) transfer of the functions of a government department to a
corporation, and enjoying monopoly status which is either state conferred or state protected.36

In Jeet Ram Thakur v. Himachal Pradesh University and others,37 it was held by the Himachal
Pradesh High Court that the powers conferred upon the Central Government under section 14(2)
of the Act would also cover autonomous bodies like universities which are situated within the
territory of India, although they may not, at all, be subject to any Government control. In the case
of such autonomous bodies it is the Central Government, alone, which is empowered to issue a
notification, whereby they may be brought within the jurisdictional fold of the Central
Administrative Tribunal.

31
R.Sarangapanl v.. Madras Port Trust, AIR 1961 Mad. 234, at p.239.
32
Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committee, AIR 1952 S.C. 118; C.F., Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board,
Kalrana, AIR 1950 S.C. 163.
33
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 S.C. 856
34
R.Sarangapanl v.. Madras Port Trust, AIR 1961 Mad. 234, at p.239.
35
R.D.Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
36
Ibid.
37
Jeet Ram Thakur v. Himachal Pradesh University and others, 1988 (3) SLJ 37 (H.C.).

9|Page
 2.5.PERSONS EMPLOYED IN ANY CORPORATION OR A SOCIETY
As in the case of local and other authorities, the Central Government is further empowered, to
apply the provisions of the Act and thereby extend the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative
Tribunal in respect of the employees of any corporation or a society which is "owned or
controlled by the Government".38 It may be pointed that though the word 'Government' is not
qualified by the words 'Union' or 'State', but, in the light of the concluding words of this sub-
section which restricts the exercise of powers by the Central Government to such corporations or
societies as are not controlled or owned by a State Government, the word 'Government', in the
context, must mean the Union Government. It may, therefore, be said that the Central
Government can issue a notification, under this section, only in respect of such corporations and
societies which are controlled or owned by it.

3. EXCEPTIONS
Section 2 excludes the operation of the Act in respect of certain categories of persons specified
therein. As such, no Tribunal can exercise any jurisdiction, powers and authority over these
persons. The exceptions, thus, embodied in this section cover the three broad categories of
Government servants discussed below.

3.1.MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES OF THE UNION

Clause (a) of section 2 excludes, the members of the naval, military and air forces, and of any
other armed forces of the Union, from the operation of the Act and thereby debars the Tribunal
from exercising any jurisdiction in respect of these persons.
A person is said to be a member of the naval, military or air force if he is governed by the
provisions of the Navy Act, the Army Act or the Air Force Act, as the case may be. In order to
determine whether a person is so governed recourse may be had to the relevant provisions of
these Acts, wherein then categories of persons governed by the Act concerned are specified.

Difficulties may, however, arise in determining the meaning and scope of the expression "any
39
other armed forces of the Union". In Akhilesh Prasad v. Union Territory of Mizoram while
interpreting the expression "armed forces of the Union", occurring in section 197(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it was observed by the Court that the expression cannot be

38
Section 14(2).
39
Akhilesh Prasad v. Union Territory of Mizoram, AIR 1981 S.C. 806.

10 | P a g e
governed by a definition occurring elsewhere (either in CrPC or any other statute) and, therefore,
it must be given its ordinary meaning, which would not certainly be limited to the inclusion of
only military, naval and air force of the Union. The court made a reference to Entry 2 in List I of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which clearly envisages armed forces other than the
three well-known forces of the State, namely, the military, naval and the air forces. It was held
by the court that the expression includes not only the regularly operating force but also a reserve
force, like, The Central Reserve Police Force.40

Similarly in R.Wiswan and others v. Union of India 41a question arose in regard to the expression
"any force raised and maintained in India under the authority of Central Government", Occurring
in Section 4(1) of the Army Act. Though the context was different, in as much as the basic
question was about the scope and ambit or Article 33 of the Constitution, but the observations
made in the case are relevant for the present purpose. Article 33 carves out an exception in so far
as the applicability of Fundamental-Rights to the members of Armed Forces and the forces
charged with the maintenance of public order is concerned. In charged with the maintenance of
public order is concerned. In pursuance of the powers conferred upon it under Article 33 the
Parliament has enacted, in section 20 of the Army Act, certain restrictions on the enjoyment of
Fundamental Rights by any person subject to the said Act. By section 4(1) of the Act, the Central
Government has been authorized to apply the provisions the Act to 'any force raised and
maintained in India under the authority of that Government'. Acting in pursuance of these powers
the Central Government applied certain provisions of the Army Act to the members of General
Reserve Engineering Force (GREF). Hence, in the present case the question was whether GREF
was a force within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Army Act. On an analysis of the history,
composition, administration, organization and role of GREF, it was held to be an integral part of
the armed forces.42 It is organized on army pattern with units and sub-units and rank structure.
Though it is, undoubtedly a departmental construction agency, but it was held to be distinct from
other construction agencies, such as the Central Public Works Department, etc., in that it is a
force intended primarily to support the army in its operational requirement.

40
Ibid.
41
R.Wiswan and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 658.
42
Ibid.

11 | P a g e
In Kunju Krishanan Pillai v. Union of India and others43 the Central Administrative Tribunal
was faced with the similar question of determination of the status of a member of the General
Reserve Engineering force for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Precisely the
issues before the Tribunal were whether:

i. The General Reserve Engineering Force is an "armed force of the Union" within the
meaning of Section 2(a) of the Administration Tribunals Act, and
ii. the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under Section 4(1) of the Act, has
jurisdiction to deal with and dispose of the grievance of the petitioner who was a member
of the GREF.

Since, on both these points there was a difference of opinions between the two members of the
Bench constituted to hear the case, the matter was ultimately referred to and decided by the
chairman of the Tribunal.44

K.Madhava Reddy, the Hon'ble Chairman of the Tribunal held that in order to determine
"whether such a force to which the petitioner belongs is an armed force or not, not merely the
composition of the force but the object and purpose of constituting the force, the nature of duties
to be discharged by the force (and not by the petitioner or for that matter by any other members,
individually), the discipline enforced, the tasks required to be performed, and the type of control
exercised and the rules that govern their recruitment, their service conditions, their discipline all
have to be taken into account".45 On the basis of these factors the GREF was held to be ‘an
armed force of the Union’ within the meaning of section 29(a) of the Act.46

The Tribunal, next observed that every person, whether enrolled as a 'combatant' or a 'non-
combatant' in such force would, in any case, be termed as a member of the armed forces of the
Union. In coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision,47 wherein
it was held that persons serving the army even in the capacities of cooks, chowkidars, laskars,
barbers, carpenters, mechanics, boot-makers, tailors, etc. fall within the category of 'members of
the armed forces'. Although they are non-combatants and, in some matters, are governed by the

43
Kunju Krishanan Pillai v. Union of India and others, 1986 (3) SLJ 194 (CAT).
44
Section 26.
45
Kunju Krishanan Pillai v. Union of India and others, 1986 (3) SLJ 194 (CAT).
46
Ibid.
47
Kutlilingal Achudan Nair and other v.Union of India and others, AIR 1976 S.C. 1179.

12 | P a g e
Civil Service Regulations, yet, they are integral part to the Armed Forces and hence, answer the
description of the "members of the armed forces" within the contemplation of Article 33 of the
Constitution.

Though the Supreme Court (in the above mentioned case) was dealing with the expression
"armed forces" in the context of Article 33 but, it was given a meaning not with reference to any
particular definition of that expression, for, there is no definition of this expression either in the
Constitution or the General Clauses Act. Therefore, in the absence of any definition of the
expression "armed forces of the Union" in the Administrative Tribunals Act, the Hon'ble
Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal did not see any valid reasons not to follow the
Supreme Court observations in this regard. Accordingly, it was held that once a person is found
to be a member of an Armed Force, in any capacity whatsoever, such a person cannot at the same
time be a 'civilian filling a post connected with defence or Defence Services'. As a result GREF
personnels, being members of the armed forces of the Union, were held to fall outside the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal in view of the provisions of section 2(a) of the Act.48

Other forces held by the Tribunal to be covered under the expression "armed forces of the
Union" include: The Indo- Tibetan Border Police49, Central Industrial Security Force50, Border
Security Force51, Railway Protection Force52, Survey of India53, whereas, the Delhi Police Force
was held not to be an armed force within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act54.

3.2.MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE JUDICIARY

The Chief Justice of India is authorized to make appointments of the officers and servants of
Supreme Court and also to prescribe by rules their conditions of service.55 Likewise, the Chief
Justice of a High Court is vested with the power to make appointments of officers and servants
of the High Court and to make rules regulating their conditions of service.56 The executive has
no control in respect of these matters except that such rules, in so far as they relate to salaries,

48
Section 26.
49
Jai Singh v. Union of India 1986 (2) SLJ 286 (CAT).
50
Anand Thakur v. Union of India (1986) 1 ATC 366 (CAT)
51
(1987) 3 ATC 918 (CAT); (1987) 2 ATC 166 (CAT).
52
Bhola Nath Sen v. Union of India, 1991 (1) SLR 339 (CAT)
53
D.P.Gupta v. Government of India (1990) 12 ATC 181.
54
Surinder Nath v. Union of India (1986) 1 ATC 656 (CAT
55
Article146, Constitution of India.
56
Article 229, Constitution of India.

13 | P a g e
allowances, leave or pension require the approval of the President (in the case of the staff of the
Supreme Court) and of the Governor (in the case of the staff of the High Court). Having regard
to the dignity of the offices of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a High Court, it would
have been improper and inappropriate to subject, any action taken by them, to the Scrutiny of the
Administrative Tribunals.
Therefore, section 2(c) was enacted to exclude the staff (officers and servants) of the Supreme
Court and of the High Courts from the jurisdictional purview of the Tribunals. In 1987, by an
amendment to the Act, the officers and servants of the subordinate courts have also been,
similarly, excluded from the purview of the Tribunals' jurisdiction. It may be observed that the
exclusionary clause (c) of section 2 does not, in express terms, include the members (Judges) of
the judiciary. Hence, for arguments sake, it may be said that these members of the subordinate
judiciary are amendable to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals, being in civil
services or holders of civil posts under the State. But, it would be grossly improper and
inappropriate to hold so. For, the Parliament could have never intended to subject the members
of the courts to the jurisdiction of the Tribunals, whereas the officers and servants of such courts
have been excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Tribunals.

Therefore, the various provisions of the Act, such as sections 2(c) and 15(1), must be so
construed as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunals in respect of service disputes relating to
the members of the Judiciary. The word "officers" used in the exclusionary clause (c) of section
2 may be widely interpreted to include judicial officers as well, or in the alternative, the
expression "civil posts" and "civil services" used in section 15(1), must be construed in a
narrower sense to exclude the members of the judicial service of the State and the posts of Sub-
Judges and District Judges. Such constructions would be in line with the letters and spirit of the
Act as also in consonance with the scheme of Chapters IV and V of Part VI of the Constitution.

It may be useful to make a reference to the observation made by the Supreme Court in a case57
relating to the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal set up under Article
371-D of the Constitution. A view was expressed by the Court that for ensuring the
independence of the judiciary, the officers and servants of the High Court and also the judicial
officers should be kept out of the purview of the Tribunal. With this object in mind the court held

57
Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. Jikshitulu, AIR 1979 S.C. 193

14 | P a g e
that the undefined and flexible phrase "civil services of the State", occurring in Article 371-D(3)
of the Constitution has to be narrowly construed so as to exclude the posts in the judicial service
of the State and of the District Judges and of officers and servants of High Court.58

3.3.MEMBERS OF THE SECRETARIAL STAFF OF THE LEGISLATURES

Article 98 of the Constitution provides for a separate secretarial staff of the each House of
Parliament. The Article empowers the Parliament to regulate the recruitment and conditions of
service of persons appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament and until a law
is made by the Parliament, the President may, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of
People or the Chairman of the Council of States, as the case may be, make rules regulating the
same. Likewise under Article 187, each House of the Legislature of a State shall have a separate
secretarial staff. Until provision is made by the Legislature of the State in this behalf, the rules
regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the said secretarial
staff may be made by the Governor after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly or the Legislative Council, as the case may be.
The Secretarial staff of each House functions under the administrative control of the Speaker or
the Chairman, as the case may be. It seems that in order to respect "the grandeur and majesty of
the task which have been assigned to the Legislatures under the Constitution" and in order to
equate these presiding officers with the Chief Justices referred to in clause (e) of section 2, it has
been considered inappropriate that the orders of the Speaker and the Chairman should be
subjected to the authority of the Administrative Tribunals.59 Hence, Parliament has excluded the
applicability of the Act to 'any person appointed to the Secretarial staff of either House of
Parliament or to the Secretarial Staff of any State Legislature or a House thereof or, in the case of
a Union Territory having a Legislature, of that Legislature'.60

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

i. I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (9th Ed., 2017).

Statutes

58
Ibid.
59
I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (9th Ed., 2017).
60
Ibid.

15 | P a g e
 i. Constitution of India, 1950.
ii. Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985

Case Laws

i. A.K. Mukerjee v. Secretary,N.C.E.R.T. 1986 (3) SLJ 114 (CAT)

ii. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 S.C. 856
iii. Akhilesh Prasad v. Union Territory of Mizoram, AIR 1981 S.C. 806.
iv. Anand Thakur v. Union of India (1986) 1 ATC 366 (CAT)
v. Ananda Prakash Singhal v. Union of India, 1991 (1) SLJ 137 (CAT).
vi. Anurudh Singh v. Union of India, ATR 1988 (2) 405 (CAT)
vii. Bal Krishan and others v. Kendrlya Vldhalaya Sangathan 1986 (3) SLJ 431 (CAT)
viii. Bhola Nath Sen v. Union of India, 1991 (1) SLR 339 (CAT)
ix. C.F Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kalrana, AIR 1950 S.C. 163.
x. Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. Jikshitulu, AIR 1979 S.C. 193
xi. D.D.Surf v. A.K.Barren (1976) 1 SCC 967.
xii. D.M.S.Employees' Union v. Union of India, AIR 1988 (1) 183 (CAT).
xiii. D.P.Gupta v. Government of India (1990) 12 ATC 181.
xiv. J.R.Purl v. Union of India, 1987 (2) SLJ 310 (CAT)
xv. Jai Singh v. Union of India 1986 (2) SLJ 286 (CAT).
xvi. Jeet Ram Thakur v. Himachal Pradesh University and others, 1988 (3) SLJ 37 (H.C.).
xvii. K.S.Ramamurthy Reddiar v. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry and Anr., AIR 1963 SC
1464.
xviii. Khageshwar Nayak v.Union of India, 1986 (4) SLJ 343 (CAT).
xix. Kunju Krishanan Pillai v. Union of India and others, 1986 (3) SLJ 194 (CAT).
xx. Kutlilingal Achudan Nair and other v. Union of India and others, AIR 1976 S.C. 1179.
xxi. Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committee, AIR 1952 S.C. 118;
xxii. Narender Gupta v. Union of India 1986 (2) SLJ 213 (CAT)
xxiii. R.D.Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
xxiv. R.Sarangapanl v.. Madras Port Trust, AIR 1961 Mad. 234.
xxv. R.Wiswan and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 658.
xxvi. Rehmat Ullah Khan and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1989 (2) SLJ 293 (CAT).

16 | P a g e
xxvii. State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra, AIR 1967 S.C. 884; 886.
xxviii. State of Jammu & Kashmir v. M.S.Farooql, AIR 1972 S.C. 1738.
xxix. Surinder Nath v. Union of India (1986) 1 ATC 656 (CAT)
xxx. Union of India v. Basant Rai
xxxi. V.K.Singh v. Union of India, 1986 (1) SLJ 124 (CAT).

17 | P a g e