: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6273 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.6273 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.6273 OF 2005 Arun P.Shegokar & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.P.Saxena & Mr.A.S.Rao for the petitioners. Mr.R.R.Shetty with Mr.D.A.Dube for respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 26.3.2004 in O.A.No.632 of 2002. 2. In that Original Application, the petitioner has challenged the seniority of respondents as Chargeman Grade-II (Part-II Cadre) as on 1.1.2002. 3. Perusal of the judgement of the C.A.T. shows that the Tribunal has not examined the grievance of the petitioners independently. What the Tribunal has done is that it merely relied on a judgement of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P.Nos.4739 of 1997 and 3425 of 1997, decided on 30.9.1999 in the case of Rejender Singh & Ors. v/s. Rejender Singh & Ors. v/s. Rejender Singh & Ors. v/s. : 2 : Union of India & Ors. Union of India & Ors. Union of India & Ors. 4. It appears that it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgement of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court relied on before the Tribunal, cannot be termed as a valid judgement in view of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement in the case of L Chandra Kumar v/s. Union of India & Ors. reported in L Chandra Kumar v/s. Union of India & Ors. reported in L Chandra Kumar v/s. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 S.C.C. 261. (1997) 3 S.C.C. 261. (1997) 3 S.C.C. 261. 5. The Tribunal, however, observed that it is the judgement of the Delhi High Court and, therefore, it will not be proper for the C.A.T. to declare that the judgement is per-curiam. The Tribunal held that it is bound by the judgement of the Delhi High Court and followed it. 6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. 7. The date of the judgement of the Delhi High Court is 30.9.1999. The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the case of L Chandra Kumar (supra) L Chandra Kumar (supra) L Chandra Kumar (supra) on 18.3.1997. Paragraphs 93 and 94 of that judgement are relevant for the present purpose. They read thus :- : 3 : "93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. 94. The directions issued by us in respect of making the decisions of Tribunals amenable to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts will, however, come into effect prospectively i.e. will apply to decisions rendered hereafter. To maintain the sanctity of judicial proceedings, we have invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling to as not to disturb the : 4 : procedure in relation to decisions already rendered." 8. It is clear from the perusal of the above quoted paragraphs that on and from 18.3.1997, jurisdiction to entertain the petition, challenging the orders passed by the C.A.T. was vested in the Division Bench of the High Court and obviously, therefore, the judgement delivered by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court would not not be valid because it is contrary to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the vital aspect of the matter by saying that it has no jurisdiction to declare judgement of the Delhi High Court as per-curiam. In our opinion, in view of this peculiar situation that the judgement of the Delhi High Court of the learned Single Judge was contrary to the binding direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal should have examined the controversy on merits independently of that judgement and decided it on its merits. 10. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice :- : 5 : a) The order dated 26.3.2004 passed by the C.A.T. in O.A.No.632 of 2002 is set aside. b) O.A.No.632 of 2002 is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal for de-novo consideration and decision in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made above. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)