Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12054 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Babita Massey Aged About 42 Years, W/O Sri Anil D. Jai Presently Residing In Quarter No. 652b, O.T. Para Near Railway Hospital, Rly. Colony, N.F. Railway, Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through G.M. N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Distt. Kamroop, Assam 2. The Divisional Railway, N.F. Rly Katihar 3. The Addl. D.R.M., N.F. Rly, Katihar 4. The Sr. Divisional Medical Officer, N.F.Rly, Katihar 5. The Chief Medical Suptd., N.F.Rly, Katihar 6. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, N.F.Rly, Katihar 7. The Chief Medical Director, N.F. Rly Maligaon 8. Dr. B.B.Lal, Sr.D.M.O. (Ic) Kashganj, N.F.Rly, Izzatnagar 9. Sr. S.C.Haldar 13 B 93 Salt Lake Sector- 1, Kolkata- 700064 10. Dr. S.M. Ali Retd. Sr. D.M.O., N.F. Rly, Katihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M. M. P. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Nagendra Upadhyay, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 05-08-2013 We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Counter affidavit has also been filed. We are of the opinion for reasons to be explained hereinafter, that the order under challenge is not sustainable on a single issue relating to procedural jurisdiction and the matter has to be remanded for fresh hearing. We therefore do not consider it necessary to take 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.12054 of 2013 (3) dt.05-08-2013 2 / 6 note of the facts except to the extent necessary lest it may prejudice the case of either party at the fresh hearing. It is not in controversy that O.A. No. 291 of 2012 was finally heard and orders reserved on 7.1.2013 by a
Legal Reasoning
Bench comprising two members of the Tribunal, Sri A.K. Jain, Member (Administrative) and Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial). The petitioner filed M.A. No. 126 of 2013 that since the Judicial Member had been transferred from the Patna Bench to Kolkata and had also relinquished charge of the Patna Bench on 31.1.2013, the orders reserved by her had not been pronounced as yet, in the fitness of things, O.A. No. 291 of 2013 may be heard afresh by the appropriate Bench. It was disposed on 4.4.2013 opining that since it related to exercise of jurisdiction by a coordinate Bench, the subsequent Bench comprising of Sri S.K. Pattnaik, Member (Judicial) and Sri A.K. Jain, Member (Administrative) were not possessed of jurisdiction to do so and referred the matter to the Chairman, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Counsel for the respondents has fairly acknowledged that no instructions whatsoever has been received from the Central Bench, New Delhi. Final order was however pronounced on 10.5.2013 signed by Sri A. K. Jain and Ms. Bidisha Banerjee. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ms. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.12054 of 2013 (3) dt.05-08-2013 3 / 6 Bidisha Banerjee had become functus officio after 31.1.2013 and the question of her signing an order on 10.5.2013 in which judgment may have been reserved earlier is vitiated for lack of jurisdiction. Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to Rule 105 to 107 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules‟). It was submitted that under Rule 107, Ms. Bidisha Banerjee could have signed the order in a matter which she may have heard while she was the Member of the Patna Bench as it related more to administrative aspect of the matter. Rule 105 provides for pronouncement of the order. The Rules stipulated that the pronouncement should be made immediately after hearing is concluded, to the extent possible. If orders are reserved, the date of pronouncement fixed should not be more than three weeks. The date may be changed after hearing the parties. The operative portion may be read in open Court which shall be deemed to be pronouncement of the order. The order reserved by a Circuit Bench of the Tribunal may be pronounced at the principal place of sitting of the Bench. In our opinion, the only clause relevant for the purpose of the present discussion is that orders should be pronounced not later than three weeks and if the date had to be extended, it can be done only after notice to the parties concerned. We have already noticed that the 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.12054 of 2013 (3) dt.05-08-2013 4 / 6 petitioner had filed M.A. No. 126 of 2013, for fresh hearing. It is not the case of the respondents that any fresh date was fixed by the Bench comprising Sri A.K. Jain and Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, extending the date of pronouncement after three weeks, if it could have been done subsequent to relinquishment of charge by Ms. Bidisha Banerjee. Rule 106 provides that any Member of the Bench may pronounce the order on behalf of the Bench. Rule 107 authorises any Member to pronounce the order. It states that if the Members of the Bench who heard the case are not readily available or have ceased to be Members of the Tribunal, the Chairman/Vice-Chairman may authorize any other Member to pronounce the order on his being satisfied that the order has been duly prepared and signed by all the Members who heard the case. The order pronounced by the Member so authorized shall be deemed to be duly pronounced. The Member authorized for pronouncing the
Decision
order shall affix his signature in affirmance of pronouncement. If the order cannot be signed by reason of death, retirement or resignation or for any other reason by any one of the Members of the Bench who heard the case, it shall be deemed to have been released from part-heard and listed afresh for hearing. The respondents appear to be mixing up Rule 107(a) and Rule 107(c). The former provides where a Member 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.12054 of 2013 (3) dt.05-08-2013 5 / 6 may have signed the order and only a former pronouncement was to be made. The latter covers cases where the order has not been signed. The present case undoubtedly falls in the second category. The submission that the operation of Rule 107(c) was limited only to cases of death, retirement or resignation and would not cover a case of transfer, has only to be stated to be rejected. The words “death, retirement or resignation” are not conclusive but are followed by the words “for any other reason”. The latter would undoubtedly take within its ambit a case of transfer where the matter may have been heard, orders reserved and it remained unsigned. In such a case, the question for pronouncement of the order does not arise. No sooner that one of the Members who had heard the matter stood transferred, under Rule 107(c), the case had to be listed for fresh hearing. The judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench for fresh hearing in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the Tribunal shall endeavour to hear the matter afresh and dispose it by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner next invites 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.12054 of 2013 (3) dt.05-08-2013 6 / 6 our attention to the order dated 4.7.2013 granting him interim relief in the present proceeding. It shall be open for him to petition the Tribunal appropriately in this regard in view of the order of remand made by us. The application is allowed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Vikash Jain, J) P. Kumar/-