LexNAROTTAM DAS BESHTTO/B.P. DOBHAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A NAROITAM DAS BESHITO/B.P. DOBHAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AUGUST 16, 1994 B [KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 14-/ndo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 199}-Section (l)fpT-Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribu- nal-Lowei-Division Clerks of Inda-Tibetan Border Police Forc~Whetlter C can be regarded as member of amied forces of Union-Held. N&-Administra- tive Tribunal has jurisdiction concen1ing their service 1natters. D The· two petitioners having been appointed as clerks of the Indo· Tibetan Border Police Force filed writ petition praying to prohibit the · Administrative Tribunal from proceeding further with the adjudication relating to service matter of the petitioners. It was submitted that as this police force was an 'armed force of the Union', the incumbents had to be taken as members of this force, because of the definition of this expression as given in Section 2(1)(p) of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act. 1992. It was further submitted that section 6 of tlie Act enlarged the E meaning. It was aversed that before the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force had come to be enacted, the provisions governing Central Reserve Police Force were applicable to the members of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, and that a Lower Division Clerk of Central Reserve Police Force had been given the status of a Head Constable. F The points for decision in these petitions were whether the two G petitioners could be said to be members of the "armed forces" or they had to be taken as civilians and whether Central Administrative Tribunal bad·· jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter relating to the promotion of the two petitioners. Dismissing the writ petition, this Court HELD : 1.1 Section 2(1) (p) of Indo· Tibetan Border Police Force Act, : 1992 had defined "member of the force" to mean an officer, a sub-ordinate officer, an under-officer or other enrolled person". Clause (j) of the Sub- H Section (1) had defined "enrolled person" to mean "under-officer or other 670 N.D. BESHTTO v. U.0.1. [HANSARIA. J.J 671 person enrolled under this Act." Section 153 dealing "ith rank structure had A dealt with classification of the officers and other members of,the force in accordance with their rank and clause (d) of sub-section (l) has categorised constable only as 'enrolled persons other than under-officers". These provisions leave no doubt that the only 'other enrolled person' of . whii:h clause (p) speaks of is constable. The Lower Division Clerk is not such a person. [672-E, Fl B 1.2. The provisions governing Central Resen·e Police Force do not at all with the mode of enrolment of Lower Dh"ision Clerks. The same is governed by what has been provided in lndo- Tibetan Border Police Force (Lower Division Clerk) Recruitment Rules, 1973. [673-F] C 13. The two petitioners could not be regarded as members of the armed forces of the Union and as such their service mailers would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal inasmuch as they have to be treated as 'civilians" which would bring into operation section 14 of the Ad- ministrative Tribunal Act because of which the Tribunal would have juris- D diction concerning their service matters. [673-H, 674-A) CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 687 and 751 of 1988. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) AP. Mohanty for the Petitioners. V.V. Vaje, P.Parmeswaran, R.P. Srivastava, W.S. Quadri, Ms. Sush- ma Suri, Ms. A. Subhashini and Ms. Asha Jain Madan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. The only point for decision in these petitions under ARticle 32 of the Constitution is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) has jurisdiction to adjudicate the mat- E F ter relating to the promotion of the two petitioners. The Tribunal having G been established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 would have no Jurisdiction if the petitioners be members of "armed forces of the Union', because of what has been stated in section 2(a) of this Act. The point for determination, therefore, is whether the two petitioners, who at the relevant time were Lower Division Clerks, can be said to be member of the 'armed forces' or they have to be taken as 'civilians''. H A B 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 2. The two petitioners having been appointed as clerks of the Indo· Tibetan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.