LexM.B. MAJUMDAR versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
M.B. MAJUMDAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA
AUGUST 22, 1990
[J.S. VERMA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA
REDDY, JJ.]
Administrative Tribunals Act 1985/Central Administrative Tri-
bunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chair--
--;
man, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules 1985.
Sections 4, 7, 14, 17, 35/Rule 3-Central Administrative Tri-
bunals-Members-Not equated with High Court Judges/Vice Chair-
man of Tribunal for purposes of pay and superannuation whether valid
and legal.
D
The petitioner is a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative
£
F
Tribunal. In this writ petition he claims equality of the Members of the
Administrative Tribunal with the Judges of the High Court, or even the
Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal, in the matter of pay, and age of
superannuation.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances
and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members)";
Rules, 1985 were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section
35(2)(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Rule 3 of the Rules
specifies Rs.8,000 p.m. as the pay of the Vice-Chairman and the pay
scale of Rs. 7300-100-7600 p.m. for a Member. Rule 8 prescribes the age
of superannuation for the Chairman and Vice Chairman at 65, and for
any other Member 62 years.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that an arbitrary )
distinction had been made in the conditions of service, particularly in
regard to pay and age of superannuation, between the Vice-Chairman
G
and the Members; that the judicial functions discharged by the Vice-
Chairman and the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal
were the same and, therefore, the principle of "equal pay for equal
work" applied, and on that basis Article 14 had been violated; and that
the Administrative Tribunal being a substitute for the High Court for
adjudicating disputes relating to service matters, the Members of the Y
H
Tribunal should be equated with the High Court Judges for all purposes
946
-
i
-
M.B. MAJUMDAR v. U.O.I.
947
including their pay and age of superannuation.
A
)-
S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, [1987] l SCC 124, relied
upon.
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that all the functions
of the Vice-Chairman and the Members were not the same in as much
B
as the Vice-Chairman, in addition to filling the casual vacancy in the
office of the Chairman, also discharged certain administrative functions
~ - -entrusted to him by the Chairman.
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court,
HELD: (1) It is the law enacted by Parliament constituting the
Administrative Tribunal which has to be imt seen for the purpose of
ascertaining the real nature and status of the Tribunal and the persons
constituting it. l953E]
c
(2) It is not possible for the Administrative Tribunalto shed off or
D
abandon its heritage and substitute its genes with those of its choice of a
different heritage. [956G]
( 3) There is no ambiguity in the provisions of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, and the exact status and service conditions of the
/ Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Administrative Tribunal
E
together with the qualifications for appointment to these offices have
been clearly spelt out in the Act. [953F I
( 4) From the scheme of the Act aitd the rules framed thereunder
it is quite clear that their enactment is in the manner laid down in
Article 323-A of the Constitution. From the scheme it is evident that the
{ Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members are not treated as one class
'-.. for this purpose by the very enactment which provides for the establish-
ment of the Tribunals. Such elaborate provisions were unnecessary if
the Tribunal was to be equated with the High Courts and its members
with High Court Judges. [9530; 954C]
(5) Article 323-A and 323-B themselves require the law constitut-
ing these Tribunals to provide for the pay and other conditions of
service of its Members and, therefore, the same would be governed in
"( the case of each Tribunal by the provisions of the statute giving birth to
the Tribunal. These statutes being different, the provisions therein in
F
G
this behalf can also be different, which has been left to the legislative
H
wisdom to decide. [955G-H]
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
(6) Equation of the Tribunal with the High Court was only as the
A
forum for adjudication of disputes relating to service matters an<!~
not for allExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.