Time to take stock of functioning of Central Administrative Tribunal

FOUR decades may not be a long period in the life of an institution but it’s certainly good enough to take stock of its functioning to see whether it’s serving the purpose it was created for. Established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on November 1, 1985, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) will complete 40 years of its existence in the next few days.

Dispute resolution is one of the core functions of the State discharged mainly through a three-tier court system, with the Supreme Court at the top. Tribunals – which are quasi-judicial bodies – were not envisaged under the Constitution. The CAT came into existence via the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution which added Article 323-A for establishment of administrative tribunals and Article 323-B other tribunals. Unlike courts, tribunals, including the Central Administrative Tribunal, have both judicial and expert members from specialised fields.

The CAT adjudicates upon disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, States, and other local authorities under the Government of India. It also exercises jurisdiction over employees of 230 Public Sector Undertakings and organisations notified by the Government.

The CAT has its Principal Bench in New Delhi and 18 Benches regional Benches across India. Headed by the Chairman—normally a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, the CAT consists of 69 Members — 35 Judicial, including the Chairman, and 34 Administrative.

Instead of rigid procedures of the Code of Civil Procedure, the CAT follows principles of natural justice and allows aggrieved government employees to file applications with a nominal fee of Rs. 50.

However, despite displaying an impressive disposal rate of over 90 per cent in the last four decades, the CAT faces the problem of pendency – a malaise that notoriously afflicts the Indian judiciary. The Law Commission reported that as of July 2017 more than 44,000 cases were pending before CAT. The number reached 80,545 cases by December 31, 2022. Now, the CAT website shows that 1,25,134 cases are currently awaiting disposal.

Delay in adjudication of cases by the CAT has consequences that have implications that go far beyond these statistics. Speaking at the 10th All India Conference of the Central Administrative Tribunal last month CJI BR Gavai pointed out that “In numerous instances, Government officers and officials reach the age of retirement before their cases are finally resolved.”

Union Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Independent Charge) Jitendra Singh has talked about plans to introduce AI-enabled case management systems to support faster and more consistent adjudication, without compromising judicial independence. If and when introduced, it will go a long way in ensuring time-bound disposal of cases.

But unfortunately pendency is not the sole problem confronting the CAT. Even after the concurrent finding in the Central Administrative Tribunal and high courts, appeals are filed before the Supreme Court.

The Government has acknowledged the need to find ways of shunning avoidable appeals in high courts as the very purpose of the CAT was to provide finality at the tribunal level for ease of justice to government employees. The problem of multiplicity of appeals needs to be sorted out without compromising on citizens’ right to appeal.

The CAT is manned by Judicial and Administrative members who bring together judicial acumen and administrative experience. However, this strength of diversity is creating a different kind of challenge.

CJI Gavai has pointed out that “some of the Judges coming from administration do not forget that they are from administration and they avoid passing any order which would be against the Government…”

There is nothing unusual about a difference of opinion between Members on a CAT Bench. But the CJI’s observation, if true, alludes to a serious issue of the Cat Administrative Members displaying bias in favour of the Government. Given the fact that the Administrative Members are senior/former bureaucrats, this needs to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

As the CAT completes 40 years, the Government should appoint an expert panel to examine its functioning and to suggest measures to overcome the challenges it faces.