IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21436 of 1999 Between: 1 Faisuddin son of Shaik Mohiddin, D.No. 38-32-39 Zakkir Hussain Nagar, Marripalam, Visakhapatnam - 18 2 Aleti Sreenivasa Rao son of A.Apparao , D.No. 58-2-30/1, Syam Prasad Nagar, Marripalam Visakhapatnam -18 3 Kona Ganesh son of K.Suri, A-3 NAD Sakethapuram , Visakhapatnam -9 4 Smmta Srinivasa Rao son of S.Veeraju Plot No.1243 Alilooa Handicapped Colony, Visakhapatnam - 5 Parra Apparao son of Late Durgalu D.No. 60-22-40 Prakashnagar, Bakery Line, Malkapuram Visakhapatnam -11 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam 2 Commanding Officer, BV Yard, Visakhapatnam -9 3 Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction , particularly one in the nature of Certiorari Calling for the records leading upto and including the order dated. 21/04/1999 in OA.No.300/99 rendered by the Hon'ble Central Adminstrative Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and by quashing the same direct the respondent to enage the petitioners through Public Fund and consider their cases for regularisation against appropriate posts with all consequential and attendant beneifts and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.21436 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This petition is filed challenging the order dated 21-4-1999 passed in O.A.No.300 of 1999 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein it was held that the petitioners are not Central Government servants as they are being paid salary from Non-Public Fund and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain O.A. 2. The case of petitioners is that they were engaged by the units of first respondent as workers and that earlier, workers were brought under Public Fund and later regularised and thus, their juniors and freshers were regularised under Public Fund. The petitioners filed O.A.No.194 of 1998, which was disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a representation and in case of its rejection, they were given liberty to approach the Tribunal again. The representation was rejected and the present O.A. was filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn our attention to Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and contended that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain O.A. and decide on merits. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for contesting respondents has drawn our attention to Section 2 of the said Act and contended that the members of the navy, military or Armed forces cannot approach the Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. 4. A reading of Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act makes it clear that the Central Administrative Tribunal is constituted under the Act and it shall not apply to any member of the naval, military or Air force or of any other armed forces of the Union of India. However, Section 14 of the said Act stipulates that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise the jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and matters concerning the recruitment to any All India Service or to any civil services of the Union of India, or a civil post under the Union, or to a post connected with the defence, or in the defence services, being in either case a post filled by a civilian. Section 14 further contemplates all service matters concerning a member of All India Service or a person appointed to any Civil service of the Union of India or any civil post under the Union of India or civilian appointed to any defence service or a post connected with the defence or civilian in connection with affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation, under and controlled by the Government. A reading of Section 14 reveals that any civilian connected with the defence service or a person holding a post in respect of affairs of Union has the right to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in case of any dispute with regard to service matters. 5. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners were engaged to work in various units under the control of the respondent officials and the establishments are situated in Visakhapatnam. The question whether or not the petitioners were being paid through Public Fund or Non-Public Fund would not arise in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, which enable a civilian working in the defence services to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of service matters. 6. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the issue raised in O.A. in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 18-06-2008 bsc .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GR}