Smt. Sunita Pradhan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the grievance of the petitioner, concerning the retiral dues and compassionate appointment of her late husband who was an employee of a Central Government Department (Central Goods and Service Tax, Bhopal), falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner's counsel, acknowledging this jurisdictional aspect, prayed for the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to agitate the issue before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court, acceding to this request, granted the liberty as prayed for and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The merits of the petitioner's claim regarding retiral dues or compassionate appointment were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Sunita Pradhan, is the wife of the late Shri Narayan Pradhan, who was employed in a Class-IV post under the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Bhopal. The petitioner's grievance is that she has not received her husband's retiral dues and has not been granted compassionate appointment. The petitioner's counsel, Shri Arvind Kumar Pathak, noted that her husband was an employee of a Central Government Department. Consequently, the jurisdiction over such matters lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal. Shri Pathak then prayed for the withdrawal of the present writ petition to allow the petitioner to pursue her case before the appropriate forum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition concerning the retiral dues and compassionate appointment of an employee of a Central Government Department, specifically the Central Goods and Service Tax, Bhopal. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel argued that due to the nature of the employment of the deceased husband with a Central Government department, the appropriate forum for redressal of grievances related to retiral dues and compassionate appointment is the Central Administrative Tribunal, not the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. Respondents' Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the respondents. However, the court's observation regarding the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal implies an acknowledgment of the petitioner's contention regarding the appropriate forum.