Nibash Ranjan Das And Anr. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 6 Ors.

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition ought not to be entertained further. The reasoning was that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was now in a position to hear the Original Application filed by the petitioners. The Court noted that an Administrative Member had since been appointed to the CAT, which would enable it to address the matter. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the CAT, Guwahati Bench, to take up the hearing of the Original Application No. 87/2017. The Court also provided that the interim order passed by the High Court on 26.02.2018 would continue until the disposal of the Original Application by the CAT. The ratio decidendi is that when a specialized tribunal like the CAT becomes functional and capable of hearing a matter, a High Court should ordinarily relegate the parties to that forum, especially when the original application is pending before it. The issue of whether the promotion itself was valid or not was expressly left undecided by the High Court, as it was to be decided by the CAT.

Facts

The petitioners, Nibash Ranjan Das and Sribas Dhar, serving as Assistant Director and Assistant Commissioner in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and CGST respectively, approached the Gauhati High Court. They were aggrieved by an interim order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, which stayed their promotion. The petitioners had already joined their promoted posts when the CAT's interim order was passed. Their subsequent application to vacate this interim order could not be heard due to a lack of quorum at the CAT, specifically the absence of an Administrative Member. This led the petitioners to file the present writ petition before the High Court. The High Court, while issuing notice, had stayed the CAT's interim order. Subsequently, posting orders for the petitioners were issued on 09.10.2018, and an Administrative Member had been appointed to the CAT.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition when the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is now in a position to hear the original application, considering the appointment of an Administrative Member and the pendency of the petitioners' application for vacating the interim order. The petitioners argued that they were compelled to approach the High Court due to the inability of the CAT to hear their application for vacating the interim order, which had stayed their promotion. They contended that the High Court's intervention was necessary given the prolonged delay and the lack of quorum at the CAT. The Revenue (respondent Nos. 1 to 5) did not record any specific arguments against entertaining the writ petition, but their counsel appeared and was heard. The CAT's order dated 10.04.2017, which is the subject of the interim relief, is the primary point of contention.