UNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus DEEP CHAND PANDEY AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 27-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DEEP CHAND PANDEY AND ANR. 
AUGUST 27,1992 
[L.M. SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Services: 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: 
Sections 3( q) and 14-Jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal- C 
Casual typists in Railways-Services tenninatetf-C/aim for continuing in 
service-Whether could be entertained by the Tribunal. 
The Respondents were working as Casual Typists on daily wages lo 
the Railways. Their services were terminated and they tiled Writ Petitions D 
before the High Court challenging the same. The High Court allowed the 
Writ Petitions. 
The Union of India preferred the present appeals contending that 
the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition of the 
Respondents in view of section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, E 
1985 and that the respondents ought to have approached the Central 
Administrative Tribunal. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that they were not 
holding any civil post under the Union of India and were engaged only on 
casual basis, and that after the termination of their services, the relation-
ship of master and servant ceased to exist, and so they were not covered 
by the Administrative Tribunal Act, and were right in approaching the 
High Court. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD : 1. The Scope of Article 323A of the Constitution of India 
permitting the Parliament to legislate on the subject covered therein is, 
having regard to the language, very wide, and by enacting Administrative 
Tribunals Act, 1985 this power bas been exercised in almost full measure. 
F 
G 
An examination of section 14 and section 3(q) of the Act clearly indicates H 
49 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A that the Act covers a very wide field, and there is nothing to suggest that 
the provisions dealing with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal should receive 
a narrow interpretation. [52-B] 
2. In p~rsuance of Article 323A of Constitution of India, the Ad· 
ministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was passed and the Central Administra-
B tive Tribunal, established under section 4(1) thereof was available to the 
respondents in the present case. By clause (2)(d) of Article 323A the 
Parliament was authorised to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except 
the jurisdictiop of this Court under Article 136 with respect to the disputes 
and complaints referred to in clause (1) and accordingly by section 14 of 
C the Act, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all courts 
except the Supreme Court have been vested in the Central Administrative 
Tribunal. [51 B·C] 
3. The respondents claimed their right to continue in the employ· 
ment of the Union of India as before, with additional claim of temporary 
D status. Therefore, the remedy of the respondents was before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal and not before the High Court. [52 D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 3488-89 
of 1992. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.92 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in M.P. Nos. 1405 and 1425 of 1990. 
D.N. Dwivedi, Additional Solicitor General, C. Ramesh and V.K. 
Verma for the Appellants. 
F 
Anil Suhrawardy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. The question which falls for decision in these petitions 
is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal is vested with the jurisdic-
G tion to entertain and decide the claim of the respondents as against the 
petitioners Union of India and its officers in the Railway Department and 
consequently the High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 
According to their case the respondents were engaged in the office of 
Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway, Gwalior as casual 
H typists on daily wages and their services were wrongly terminated. The 
, 
U.0.1. v. D.C. PANDEY [SHARMA,J.] 
51 
respondents challenged the order by writ petitions before the Madhya A 
Pradesh High Court which have been allowed by the impugned judgment. 
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted. 
2. In pursuance of Article 323A of C_onstitution of India, the Ad-
ministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was passed and the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, established under section 4(1) thereof was available to the 
respondents in the present case. By clause (2)(d) of Article 323A the 
Parliament was authorised to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except 
the

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