RAJEEV KUMAR & ANR. versus HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 23-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 572 
RAJEEV KUMAR & ANR. 
v. 
HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2653-2654 of 2010) 
MARCH 23, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Jurisdiction - Service dispute - Application before CAT · 
- Appellants not impleaded therein - Writ petition challenging 
C the order of tribunal - lmpleadment of appellants by High 
Court - Held: Appellants approaching High Court for the first. 
time in respect of the disputes over which CAT has 
jurisdiction, is legally not sustainable - In service matters, 
High Court is not the court of first instance - On facts, despite 
o having knowledge of pendency of the proceedings before 
CAT, appellants could not have approached High Court at the 
first instance - Appellants also had alternative remedy of 
review before CAT - Impugned judgment was in violation of 
· judgment in L. Chandra Kumar* which embody a rule of law 
E in view of Article 141 of Constitution - Central Administrative 
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 - r. 17 - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Article 141 - Service Law. 
Two original applications were filed before Central 
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the respondents. 
F Appellants were not made parties therein. One 
application was dismissed while the other was partly 
allowed. When the said Judgment was challenged before 
High Court by the respondents, appellants fi!ed 
impleadment application, which was allowed by High 
· 
G Court High Court ultimately set aside the' judgment of 
CAT. Hence the present appeals. 
The question for consideration before the Court was 
whether the appellants could participate in the 
H 
572 
RAJEEV KUMAR & ANR. v. HEMRAJ SINGH 
573 
CHAUHAN & ORS. 
controversy in question at the stage when the matter was 
A 
before High Court and they were not parties before 
Central Administrative Tribunal. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The approach made to the High Court for 8 
the first time by the appellants in respect of their service 
disputes over which Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT 
) has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable. The High 
Court fell into an error by allowing the appellants to treat 
the High Court as a court of first instance in respect of C 
their service disputes, for adjudication of which CAT has 
been constituted. [Para 15) [578-8-C] 
.. 
2. The grievances of the appellants in this appeal are 
that they were not made parties in proceedings before the o 
Tribunal. But in the impleadment application filed before 
the High Court it was not averred by them that they were 
not aware of the pendency of the proceeding before the 
Tribunal. Rather, from the! averments made in the 
impleadment petition, it appears that they were aware of E 
the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It 
was therefore, open for them to approach the Tribunal 
with their grievances. Not having done so, they cannot 
approach the High Court and treat it as the Court of first 
instance in respect of their grievances by 'overlooking 
F 
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. The CAT also has the 
jurisdiction of Review u/r. 17 of Central Administrative 
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. So, it cannot be said 
that the appellants were without any remedy. [Para 16) 
[578-D-F] 
3. The principles laid down in the case of L. Chandra 
Kumar virtually embody a rule of law and in view of Article 
G 
141 of the Constitution, the same is binding on the High 
Court. The High Court fell into an error by allowing the 
appellants to approach it in clear violation of the 
H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in L. Chandra 
Kumar. (Para 18) (578-H; 579-A] 
B 
·D 
* L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 
3 sec 261, followed. 
4. As the appellants cannot approach the High Court 
by treating· it as a court of first instance, their Special 
Leave Petition before Supreme Court is also incompetent 
and not maintainable. (Para 17) [578-G] 
Case Law Reference: 
(1997) 3 sec 261 
followed. 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2653-2654 of 201 o. 
. 
. From the Judgment & Order dated 14.11.2008 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 19103-
04 ,<)f 2006 . 
. . 
. 
. ·· .. · V.N. Sheety, L.N. Rao, S.L. Misra, Shail Dwivedi, AAG, 
E · .Ravindra Kumar, T.V. Ratnam, Naresh Kaushik, Kiran 
· 
Bhardwaj, Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, Binu Tamta, 
.· Upendra Nath Misra, Nikhil Majithia, Anuvr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.