Explain working in absence of 2nd member: HC to CAT
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, May 16
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to apprise the court of its functioning and dealing with matters before it in the absence of a “second member”. The direction came over a month after the High Court sought the response of the Union of India on resolving the crisis in CAT at Chandigarh following the absence of an administrative member. The Bench also asked CAT to specify the number of matters dealt with by its two-member Bench.
What the Bench said
- The direction came over a month after the High Court sought the response of the Union of India on resolving the crisis in CAT at Chandigarh following the absence of an administrative member. The Bench also asked CAT to specify the number of matters dealt with by its two-member Bench.
- Observing that “admittedly” only one judicial member in Chandigarh was functioning, the Bench also directed the filing of an affidavit “as to how the tribunal is functioning to deal with these kinds of matters in the absence of a second member”.
As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the High Court directed CAT counsel Namit Kumar to apprise the court of “the number of matters dealt with by the Bench of two members of the tribunal, which is stated to be dealing with recruitment/selection/appointment/termination and punishment orders passed by various departments”.
Observing that “admittedly” only one judicial member in Chandigarh was functioning, the Bench also directed the filing of an affidavit “as to how the tribunal is functioning to deal with these kinds of matters in the absence of a second member”.
The Bench called for the details of pending cases in the affidavit to be filed by the CAT Registrar. “In the meantime, the respondent shall take steps in pursuance of the vacancy circular which is stated to have been issued on April 4 and try to ensure that the same is completed at the earliest…,” the Bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Suri asserted, while fixing the case for the second week of August.
The Bench had. on the previous date of hearing, sought the response of the Union of India on resolving the crisis in CAT following the absence of an administrative member. The Bench had asked Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain to assist the court “as to what steps the Union of India proposes to take to resolve the crisis”.
The matter came to the notice of the High Court during the hearing of a petition filed in a service matter by Boota Singh against the Union of India and other respondents. Appearing before the Bench, senior counsel for the Union of India Arvind Moudgil prayed for time to comply with an earlier order. It was pointed out to the Bench that even at present only one judicial member was stationed in Chandigarh, whereas the administrative member was joining the proceedings from Bengaluru.
“Prima facie, in the opinion of this court, this methodology is seriously handicapping the proceedings of CAT and the litigants who have approached the tribunal for the redressal of their grievances. It has also been brought to our notice that the last administrative member who was stationed in Chandigarh demitted her office in June 2020 and thus the present situation is prevailing for the past almost two years,” the Bench had added
