New Delhi (04.03.2023): The Supreme Court of India on March 3, 2023 said that its last year verdict in former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay (Retd IAS: 1987: WB) case needed to be re-examined Just over a year after it ruled that only the Delhi High Court and no other high courts would have jurisdiction to entertain a plea against a decision taken by principal bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The Apex Court in January last year had allowed the plea of the Centre and set aside the order of Calcutta High Court which had quashed CAT chairman's order to transfer the hearing on Bandyopadhyay’s plea against Centre's disciplinary proceedings from Calcutta Bench of CAT to its Principal Bench in Delhi and held that only Delhi HC would have jurisdiction to deal with petition against Chairman's order. The same issue cropped up in the legal wrangle between the Centre and Megasasy award winner Sanjiv Chaturvedi with Uttrakhand High Court quashing the Principal CAT Bench order to transfer the case from Allahabad bench to itself and the Centre questioning the jurisdiction of the HC in view of apex court last year order.
The bench agreed with the contention of senior advocate Shyam Divan that the last year verdict should be re-examined as it would create enormous hardships to employees who would be forced to come to Delhi from far flung areas to challenge in Delhi HC the adverse order passed against them by CAT'S Principal bench. He said that all 25 High Courts have equivalent jurisdiction, and no discrimination or special treatment is envisaged to any particular HC.
SC to revisit its decision in Ex-Chief Secretary of Bengal
By IndianMandarins - 2023-03-04 14:06:00
New Delhi (04.03.2023): The Supreme Court of India on March 3, 2023 said that its last year verdict in former West Bengal chief secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay (Retd IAS: 1987: WB) case needed to be re-examined Just over a year after it ruled that only the Delhi High Court and no other high courts would have jurisdiction to entertain a plea against a decision taken by principal bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The Apex Court in January last year had allowed the plea of the Centre and set aside the order of Calcutta High Court which had quashed CAT chairman's order to transfer the hearing on Bandyopadhyay’s plea against Centre's disciplinary proceedings from Calcutta Bench of CAT to its Principal Bench in Delhi and held that only Delhi HC would have jurisdiction to deal with petition against Chairman's order. The same issue cropped up in the legal wrangle between the Centre and Megasasy award winner Sanjiv Chaturvedi with Uttrakhand High Court quashing the Principal CAT Bench order to transfer the case from Allahabad bench to itself and the Centre questioning the jurisdiction of the HC in view of apex court last year order.
The bench agreed with the contention of senior advocate Shyam Divan that the last year verdict should be re-examined as it would create enormous hardships to employees who would be forced to come to Delhi from far flung areas to challenge in Delhi HC the adverse order passed against them by CAT'S Principal bench. He said that all 25 High Courts have equivalent jurisdiction, and no discrimination or special treatment is envisaged to any particular HC.
