Supreme Court larger bench to examine territorial jurisdiction of High Courts to decide challenge to CAT principal bench orders

The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a larger bench the issue of the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts to adjudicate on challenge to orders passed by the principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in New Delhi [Union of India vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi and ors].A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that the matter affects a large number of employees and is of public importance.The Court also noted that the counsel for the respondents sought reconsideration of the apex court's decision in the Alapan Bandyopadhyay case. "We think it appropriate that the matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court to decide a challenge to an order passed by the chairman, CAT, principal bench, New Delhi should be considered by a larger bench. Let the registry place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest so that the aforesaid issue is resolved at the earliest," the judgment said..The judgment was passed on an appeal filed by the Central government against an order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had pulled up the principal Bench of the CAT for allowing the Central government's plea to transfer a case from the Nainital circuit bench to New Delhi. The case was filed by whistle-blower and Indian Foreign Services Officer, Sanjeev Chaturvedi.The matter arose out of an original application (OA) filed by Chaturvedi before the Nainital bench of the CAT in August 2020.The OA challenged the Centre’s scheme of allowing lateral entry of private professionals into government service at the rank of joint-secretary.Chaturvedi argued that such a system is arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory against officers who have worked and trained extensively in the government from the grass-root level.The Centre, however, moved a transfer petition before the principal bench of CAT which allowed it and transferred the case to itself in December 2020, leading to the challenge of the same by Chaturvedi before the Uttarakhand High Court.The Centre told the High Court that the transfer petition was filed considering the possibility that the same policy might be challenged before other benches.Chaturvedi contended that the such a submission is hypothetical, since it was never pleaded before the principal bench.He argued that as far as the files are concerned, the Centre has the means to transfer them to Nainital and it would be much difficult for him to travel to Delhi on each listing day, since he is posted in Uttarakhand and appearing in-person.The High Court held that the balance of convenience was in the favour of Chaturvedi, since he would have to travel from Haldwani to New Delhi.The same would result in financial expenditure but also wastage of time and energy, which would prevent him from discharging his official duties.Hence, it ruled against the Central government.While quashing the CAT order dated December 12, 2020, the High Court bench of Chief Justice RS Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma held that all the benches of the CAT have the same jurisdiction, power and authority as the principal bench.The High Court, in its order passed in October 2021, added that even parliament has treated all the benches equally.The Central government then filed the present appeal before the top court..The counsel for the Central government placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay to contend that High Court decision was erroneous. The counsel for the respondents sought a reconsideration of the Alapan Bandhopadhyay decision, and pointed out that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, any High Court can adjudicate on matters if the cause of action arises in an area within its territorial jurisdiction. It was emphasised that approaching High Courts under Article 226 is an 'extremely valuable' remedy available to citizens that does not require them to come all the way to Delhi to seek redressal. Therefore, limiting the same would be contrary to the spirit of justice and the constitutional scheme.The bench after examining the issues, referred the matter to a larger bench. .Before the top court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Central government. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for Chaturvedi..[Read Judgment]