DURGADAS PURKYASTHA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 22-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DURGADASPURKYASTHA 
A 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 22, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JI.] 
B 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 8-Validity of-Judicial 
Member challenging the validity of Section 8-Contendirrg that the provision 
providing the term of 5 years and thereafter, re-appointment amounts to C 
curtailing the period of superannuation at 62 years-Held, Government has 
an option to re-appoint the member on expiry of the term beyond the first term 
of five years, the upper limit being 65 years of age in case of Chairman and 
Vice-Chairman and 62 years age in case of other members-Thus, in every 
case term of office would not end at the expiry of five years-They would 
become eligible for re-appointment for another five years period after D 
consideration by the Committee--Service Law. 
In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the validity of 
Section 8 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Petitioner contended 
that the provisions of Section 8 of the Act providing the term of five years 
and thereafter re-appointment amounts to curtailing the period of E 
superannuation at 62 years and is, therefore, void and is also contrary to 
the observations made hi Sampath Kumar's case*. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: An option is reserved to the Government to re-appoint a F 
member on the expiry of the term beyond the first term of five years, the 
outer limit being that he should be within the age of sixty five years in 
case of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and sixty two years in case of other 
Members. Thus, it would not be in every case that the Government would 
put an end to the term of office at the end of five years and such Chairman, G 
Vice-Chairman and other member would become eligible for re-
appointment for another period of five years after consideration by a 
Committee headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court and two other 
Members, one of whom will be the Chairman of the Tribunal. In these 
circumstances, the provisions section 8 as amended does not in any way 
223 
H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A dilute the effect of or are contrary to the observations made by this' Court 
in Sampath Kumar's case*. [228-8-D] 
B 
c 
*Sampath Kumar etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1987] 1 SCR 435 
and B. Ramanjini and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., [2002] 4 
SCALE 197, referred to. 
Gurdev Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr., [1964) 7 SCR 587, 
distinguished. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) Appeal 
No. 552 of 2001. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
P.P. Rao and Sanjay Parikh for the Appellants. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General for India, Ajit S. Bhasme, P. 
D Parmeshwaran, Sanjay K. Visen and Manoj K. Mishra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. By an order made on August 30, 1996 the 
Government of India appointed the petitioner, who was District and Sessions 
E Judge in West Tripura, Agartala, as a Judicial Member in the Central 
Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal']. It was 
indicated in the said order that the appointment of the petitioner will be ·for 
a period of five years from the date of joining or till he attains the age of 
sixty two years whichever is earlier. The petitioner made a representation that 
F 
he is eligible for re-appointment after expiry of the term of five years until 
he attains the age of sixty two years as has been indicated by this Court in 
Sampath Kumar etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1987) 1 SCR 435. The 
Department of Personnel informed the petitioner of the amended provisions 
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Act'] to the effect that a person whose term has expired will be eligible for 
G consideration for re-appointment. 
On 22.3.2001, the petitioner represented to the Chairman, CAT and the 
Secretary, DOPT for consideration of his re-appointment as Member with 
effect from 7.10.2001. He also made similar further representation on 1.5.2001 
and 14.5.2001 to the Chairman, CAT and to the Secretary DOPTon 18.5.2001, 
H 3.7.2001 and 4.7.2001. He made a demand on l.8.2001 to the similar effect. 
DURGADAS PURKY ASTHA v. U.OJ. [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
225 
The petitioner filed an application under Section·19 of the Act claiming 'A 
that he is entitled to continue to hold the office as a Judicial Member until 
he attained the age of sixty
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.