AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
The Petitioners are employees of Instrument Research and Development Establishment, which is a Government of India undertaking.
Learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 5 Sri I.P. Kohli has given a statement before this Court that this organisation has been notified u/s 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and therefore the matter is cognizable, at the first instance, by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that this is a matter relating to recognition of a particular degree and therefore the matter is cognizable by this Court, even though it is notified u/s 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. This submission of the Petitioners is wholly misconceived inasmuch as Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 defines "service matters" as follows:
Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) ...
(e) ...
(f) ...
(g) ...
(h) ...
(i) ...
(j) ...
(k) ...
(l) ...
(m) ...
(n) ...
(o) ...
(p) ...
(q) "service matters", in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government, as respects-
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation;
(iii) leave of any kind;
(iv) disciplinary matters; or
(v) any other matter whatsoever;
The above definition is all encompassing and comprehensive. Even the matter being agitated by the Petitioners is cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
No order as to costs.