TOPIC:

STATUS OF TRIBUNAL JUSTICE SYSTEM UNDER INDIAN

CONSTITUTION (SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SERVICE TRIBUNALS)
Table of Contents
List of Cases................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1.................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Meaning................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Definition.............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Historical Development........................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Reasons for the Growth of Administrative Tribunals...................................................... 6
1.5 Distinction between Court and Tribunal........................................................................... 8
1.6 Characteristics.................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2................................................................................................................................ 13
Constitutional Status of Tribunals............................................................................................. 13
2.1 Article 136 of Constitution................................................................................................ 13
2.2 42nd and 44th Amendment................................................................................................. 13
2.3 Constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985................................ 15
CHAPTER 3................................................................................................................................ 18
Tribunalization Of Justice.......................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Different Kinds of Tribunals............................................................................................ 18
3.2 Judicial Review Of Decisions of the Tribunals................................................................ 20
3.3 Power of Tribunals to Review Decisions......................................................................... 21
3.4 Whether Tribunals are Bound by SC and HC Decisions............................................... 22
CHAPTER 4................................................................................................................................ 24
Administrative Service Tribunal................................................................................................ 24
4.1 General Overview of Working of Central Administrative Tribunal............................ 24
4.2 Historical Account of Establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal................... 27
4.3 General Provisions of the Act........................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 5................................................................................................................................ 35
Conclusion and Suggestions........................................................................................................ 35
Bibliography................................................................................................................................. 39
BOOKS REFERRED............................................................................................................. 39
ARTICLES REFERRED...................................................................................................... 39
WEB RESOURCES................................................................................................................ 39

List of Cases
1. Ajay D. Panalkar v. Pune Telecom Deptt., (1997) 2 SCC 469.
2. Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595, 1599: (1965) 2 SCR 366
3. BaradakantaMisra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) I SCC 166: AIR 1973 SC 2466.
4. Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., AIR 1950 SC 188 : AIR 1950 SCR 459.
5. Bombay Union of Journalist v. State of Bombay, AIR 1964 SC 1617
6. Cabinet Secretary Extension Case (T.S.R Subramanian, In Re), 31-1-1998 (Del.).
7. Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520: (1955) 1 SCR 267.
8. East India Commercial Co. Ltd v. Collector of CustomsAIR 1962 SC 1893: (1963) 3 SCR 338.
9. Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80
10. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
11. J.B. Chopra V. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC422 : AIR 1987 SC 357.
12. Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1963 SC 677 at 687.
13. Jatia Estate Ltd. v. VithalbhaiBhimji, 60 CWN 927.
14. K. AjitBabu v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC473 : AIR 1997 SC 3177.
15. Kamal KantiDutta v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 38: 1980 SCC (L&S) 485: AIR 1980 SC 2056.
16. KendriyaVidyalayaSangthan v. Subhash Sharma, (2001) 10 SCC 517.
17. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261: AIR 1997 SC 1125.
18. Mahar Singh Nayak Chand v, Haunihal, (1973) 3 SCC 731: AIR 1972 SC 2533
19. Majir Chandra Bhan Singh v. LatafatUllah Khan, (1979) I SCC 321: AIR 1978SC 1814
20. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Governor of Delhi(1980) 2 SCC 167, 172: AIR 1980 SC 674, 678.
21. P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632.
22. Patel NarshiThakershi v. PradyumanSinghjiArjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844: AIR 1970 SC 1273
23. PremKakar v. State of Haryana, (1976) 3 SCC 433
24. R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex P. Gilmore, (1957) I QB 574, 586: 1957 I All ER 796, 801 (CA)
25. R.R. Verma v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 402: AIR 1980 SC 1461.
26. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC124 : AIR 1987 SC 386.
27. Shivdeo v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, 1911.
28. Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. chandrasekaran, AIR 1964 SC 107
29. State of A.P v. C.V. Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557: AIR 1957 SC 2151
30. T.N. v. S. Thangavell, (1997) 2 SCC 349: AIR 1997 SC 1183.
31. Union of India v. KantilalHematranPandya, (1995) 3SCC 17: AIR 1995 SC 1349.
32. Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177: AIR 1989 SC 1185.
33. Union of India v. Rasila Rani, (2001) 10 SCC 623.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Tribunals are a Judgment seat; a court of justice; board or committee appointed to adjudicate on
claims of a particular kind.[1]

1.1 Meaning
Today, over and above ministerial functions, the executive performs many quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial
functions also. The governmental functions have increased and even though according to traditional theory, the
function of adjudication of disputes is the exclusive jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of law, in reality, many
judicial functions have come to be performed by the executive, example imposition of fine, levy of penalty,
confiscation of goods, etc.
The traditional theory of laissez faire has been given up and the old police state has now become welfare
state, and because of this radical change in the philosophy of the role to be played by the state, its functions
have expanded. Today it exercises not only sovereign functions, but, as a progressive democratic state, it also
seeks to ensure Social Security and social welfare for the common masses. Its regulates industrial relations,
exercises control over production, initiates Enterprises. The issues arising there from are not purely legal
issues. It is not possible for the ordinary courts of law to deal with all these socio-economic problems.
For example, industrial disputes between the workers and the management must be settled as early as possible.
It is not only in the interest of the parties to the disputes, but of the society at large. It is, however, not possible
for the ordinary court of law to decide these disputes expeditiously, as it has to function, restrained by certain
innate limitations. All the same, it is necessary that such disputes should not be determined in an arbitrary or
autocratic manner. Administrative tribunals are, therefore, established to decide various quasi-judicial issues in
place of ordinary courts of law.

1.2 Definition
It is not possible to define the word tribunal precisely and scientifically. According to the dictionary,
[2] tribunal means a seat or a bench upon which a judge or judges sit in a court, and a court of justice.
But this Meaning is very wide, including even ordinary courts of law; whereas, in administrative law, this
expression is limited adjudicating authorities other than ordinary courts of law.
In Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh,[3]the Supreme Court defined tribunal in the following words:
The expression tribunal as used in Article 136 does not mean the same thing as court but includes, within
its ambit, all adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the state and are invested with judicial as
distinguished from administrative or executive functions.

In Bharat Bank Ltd. v.Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd.[4], the Supreme Court observed that though tribunals
are clad in many of the trappings of a court and they exercise quasi-judicial functions, they are not full-fledged
courts. Thus, tribunals are adjudicating bodies, which decides controversies between the parties and exercises
judicial powers as distinguished from purely administrative functions and thus possesses some of the trappings
of a court, but not all.

1.3 Historical Development

It is no doubt that the rapid growth of administrative tribunals is a special feature of the 20th century. But even
in the past, there were tribunals. According to Wade[5], commissioners of customs and excise were given
judicial powers more than three centuries ago. Tax tribunals were established in 18 th century.
After World War I and II, several tribunals were created under various welfare beneficent legislations. Today
administrative tribunals deal with and decide a wide range of disputes between individuals and individuals as
well as between subjects and their governments.[6]
In India, administrative adjudication increased after independence and several welfare laws were promulgated
which vested the power on deciding various issues in the hands of the administration. The modern Indian
Republic was born a Welfare State and thus the burden on the government to provide a host of welfare services
to the people was immense. These quasi-judicial powers acquired by the administration led to a huge number
of cases with respect to the manner in which these administrative bodies arrived at their decisions. The Courts
held that these bodies must maintain procedural safeguards while arriving at their decisions and observe
principles of natural justice-their opinions were substantiated by the14thLaw Commission Report. [7]
In order to avoid clogging the judicial machinery with cases which would have arisen by the operation of these
new socio-economic legislations, a number of tribunals were established by the government. The tribunals
were established with the object of providing a speedy, cheap and decentralised determination of disputes
arising out of the various welfare legislations.[8]
Another reason was that law courts, on because of their elaborate procedures, legalistic fronts and attitudes can
hardly render justice to the parties concerned, in technical cases. Ordinary judges, brought up in the traditions
of law and jurisprudence, are not capable enough to understand technical problems, which crop up in the wake
of modem complex economic and social processes. Only administrators having expert knowledge can tackle
such problems judiciously. To meet this requirement, a number of administrative tribunals have come into
existence.
In India such tribunals were set up immediately after independence. In fact, statutory tribunals created by the
legislature to adjudicate upon certain disputes arising from administrative decisions or to determine issues
judicially carry out the most important adjudicatory function.
The Railway Rates Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Labour Tribunals, the Companies Tribunal,
various Compensation Tribunals, Revenue Courts of various States, etc., can be cited as examples of such
tribunals.[9]
Regarding the problem of backlog and delayed disposal of case the Government set up the Administrative
Reforms Commission in 1967. It was to examine the problem, suggests solutions and also to recommend the
suitable areas in which tribunals could be set up, according to this commission.
Period of emergency played a crucial role in the evolution of tribunals in India. There were clear signals that
the executive did not want the judiciary to interfere with their developmental plans and other such decisions,
such as removing disputes regarding elections to the office of President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the
LokSabha beyond judicial scrutiny.[10] Hence in 1976 the issue was discussed at the Conference of Chief

Secretaries and from amongst all these discussions and the reports of the various bodies stated above,
Parliament enacted the 42nd Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1976 inserting Articles 323A and 323B which
provided for the establishment of administrative and other tribunals to deal with the matters specifically
provided for.[11]
The main distinction that can be made out between article 323A and 323B is that while 323A allows for the
Parliament to by law provide for administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes, 323B allows for the any
appropriate legislature, to by law create an administrative tribunal for the adjudication of disputes.
In pursuance of Art 323-A Parliament has passed the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 covering all matters
falling within the clause (1) of Article 323- A. This Act authorises central government to establish
administrative tribunals for central services and on the application of States even for States services as well as
for local bodies and other authorities including public corporation. [12]

1.4 Reasons for the Growth of Administrative

Tribunals

According to diceys theory of the rule of law, ordinary law courts must administer law of the land. He was
opposed to the establishment of administrative tribunals. Regarding the classical theory and the doctrine of
separation of powers, the function of deciding disputes between the parties belonged ordinary courts of law.
But, as discussed above, the governmental functions have increased and ordinary courts of law are not in a
position to meet the situation and solve the complex problems arising in the changed socio-economic context.
Administrative tribunals established for the following reasons:
Increasing governmental functions and activities overloaded courts with Cases that they were unable to deal
effectively. The system off administrative tribunals has positively contributed to the preservation of ordinary

judicial system.
The traditional judicial system proved inadequate to decide and settle all the disputes requiring resolution. It
was slow, costly, inexpert, complex, formalistic, already overburdened, and it was not possible to expect
speedy disposal of even very important matters, e.g. Disputes between employers and employers, lockout,
strikes, etc. these burning problems cannot be solved merely by literally interpreting the provisions of any
statute, but require consideration of various other factors that could not be accomplished by the courts of law.

Therefore, industrial tribunals and labour courts were established, which possessed the technique and expertise
to handle these complex problems.
Courts of law deal with cases, which come up before them by applying settled legal principles and by
adopting objective standards. In modern society, however, complex questions arise which cannot be decided on

objective legal principle, pure and simple. They are to be solved by keeping in mind policy consideration and
public interest. Administrative tribunals can play an ineffective role in that direction.
Persons having knowledge often law man traditional Courts. But in modern administration, many a time,
questions of specialization and expertise arise. Knowledge in a particular subject, hence, is necessary over and

above legal knowledge. Instead of a one man court, a broad based membership or a mixed panel of
administrative tribunal may better solve problems.
Administrative apologies can avoid technicalities. They take functional rather than a theoretical and legalistic
approach. The traditional judiciary is conservative, rigid and technical. It is not possible for the courts of law to

decide the Cases without formality and technicality. On the other hand, administrative tribunals are not bound
by the rules of evidence and procedure and they can take a practical view off the matter beside complex

problems.
Administrative authorities can take preventive measures, example licensing, rate fixing, etc. Unlike that of the
courts of law they do not have to wait for parties to come before them with disputes. In many cases, these
preventive actions may prove to be more effective and useful than punishing the person after he has committed

a breach of any legal provision.

Administrative authorities can take effective steps for the enforcement of the aforesaid preventive measures,

example suspension, revocation, or cancellation of license, destruction of contaminated articles, etc. which are
not generally available to the ordinary courts of law.
It ordinary courts of law, decisions are given after hearing the parties and on the basis of the evidence on
record. This procedure is not appropriate in deciding matters by the administrative authorities where wide

discretion is conferred on them and decisions maybe given on the basis of the departmental policy and other
relevant factors.
Sometimes, the disputed questions are technical in nature and the traditional judiciary cannot be expected to
appreciate and decide then. On the other hand, and administrative authorities are usually manned by experts

who can deal with and solve all these problems, example problems relating to the atomic energy, gas,
electricity, etc.
Administrative tribunals do their work more rapidly, more cheaply, more efficiently than ordinary courts,
posses greater technical knowledge and fewer prejudices against government, give greater heed to the social
interest involved, decide disputes with conscious effort at furthering social policy embodied in the legislation.

[13]

1.5 Distinction between Court and Tribunal

An administrative tribunal is similar to a court in certain aspects. Both of them are constituted by the state, are
invested with the judicial powers and have a permanent existence. Thus, they are adjudicating bodies. They
deal with and finally decide disputes between parties that affect rights of subjects. As observed by the Supreme
Court in Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma[14],
the basic and the fundamental feature which is common to both the courts and the tribunals is that they
discharge judicial functions and exercise judicial powers which inherently vest in a sovereign state.
But at the same time, it must not be forgotten that an administrative tribunal is not court. The line of distinction
between court and the tribunal in some cases is indeed fine though real. All courts are tribunals but the
converse need not necessarily be true.[15]
Tribunal possesses some of the trappings of a court, but not all, and therefore, both must be distinguished:
A court of law is the part of the traditional judicial system. Where judicial powers are derived from the state
and the body deals with Kings justice it is called a court. On the other hand, an administrative tribunal is an
agency created by the statute and invested with judicial powers. Primarily and essentially, it is the part and
parcel of the executive branch of the state, exercising executive as well as judicial functions. As Lord Greene
said, administrative tribunals perform hybrid functions.

Where ordinary civil courts have judicial power try all suits of a civil nature, excepting those whose
cognizance is either expressly on impliedly barred, tribunals have power try cases in special matters statutorily

conferred.
The mere lack of general jurisdiction to try all cases of civil nature does not necessarily lead to an inference

that the forum is a tribunal and not a court. A court can also be constituted with limited jurisdiction.
Judges of ordinary courts of law are independent of the executive in respect of the tenure, terms and

conditions of service, etc. On the other hand, members of administrative tribunals entirely in the hands of the
government in respect of those matters.
A court of law is generally presided over by an officer trained in law, but the president or a member of a

tribunal may not be trained as well in law.

In a court of law, a judge must be an impartial arbiter and he cannot decide a matter in which he is interested.

On the other hand, an administrative tribunal may be party to the dispute to be decided by it.
Court of law is bound by all the rules of evidence and procedure but an administrative tribunal is not bound by

those rules unless the relevant statute imposes such an obligation.

A court must decide all the questions objectively on the basis of the evidence and materials produced before it,
but an administrative Tribunal may decide the questions taking into account the departmental policy on

expediency and in that sense the decision may be subjective rather than objective. The real distinction is that
the courts have an air of detachment.
While precedents, principles of this res judicata and estoppel, bind a court of law an administrative tribunal is

not strictly bound by them.[16]

A court of law can decide the vires of legislation, while an administrative tribunal cannot do so. [17]

1.6 Characteristics
Necessity is the mother of invention. Necessities of the new social order warranting the enforcement of new
rights in the wake of mounting State activity increasing regulatory power in increasing large areas , and
expanding span of administrators satisfaction-based determination decisions and actions the demands of justice
and preservation of principles of natural justice and fair play have led to the establishment of what we call the
administrative tribunals. An administrative tribunal is not a court. [18] It is not an executive body either. It
stands somewhere midway between a court and an administrative body. It is a half-way house between
judiciary and the executive. It is an administrative body set up with the idea of discharging quasi-judicial
duties. It is not an administrative body simpliciter. Established by law, an administrative tribunal exercises
jurisdiction, powers and authority of law, and acts according to procedure prescribed by law. It adjudicated or
holds trials for disputes, complaints or offences with respect to matters specifies by law. Though it does not
have a general jurisdiction of a court of law, yet it discharges judicial functions. Its proceedings are adversary
in nature. Its financial nature and procedure are distinguishable from the characteristics and procedure of
legislative bodies, or for that matter, from those of any body exercising powers to amend constitution. The
latter may establish tribunals and courts, but cannot exercise judicial power and jurisdiction through procedure
established for exercise of legislative procedure.[19] It is intended to act judicially; and this distinguishes us
from the other administrative bodies described elsewhere in these pages. It defies the theory of separation of
powers in as much as the functions performed by it are neither wholly judicial, nor purely administrative. It is
an administrative body inspired by the judicial considerations, that is it is quasi judicial. It goes against the

Diceys rule of law, because, he would have liked that all disputes were taken to regular courts of law. And
administrative tribunal established under a lot. The government may formally appoints its members who may
be officials; but for its work it is not influenced by the executive. It makes its determinations or order acting
judicially, and works with dispatch, force and initiative, being free from technical rules of the court procedure
and evidence without being blind to the social needs and the accepted public policy. It takes up the task of
adjudication at the point at which the court is likely to fail. It is not intended to discard of the ideals of justice
and is legally required to be impartial, and acts judicially. It brings judicial considerations to bear on the
developmental plan of our welfare state. It does not have a general jurisdiction. It is a specialized agency,
which carries on its work with certain amount of expertise and judicial flavor. Constitutionally, it is recognized
under article 32, 136, 226, 227, 323A and 323B. The provisions of part XIV A; and the words all courts and
tribunals in article 227, and words any courts and tribunals in article 136 give the system off administrative
tribunals a firm constitutional base. The implied recognition of an administrative tribunal can be seen even in
the article 329(B).
An industrial tribunal in its organizational aspect is nearer the executive and the administration, but in its
functional aspects tends to move towards a court. It has trappings off a court, but is definitely not a court.It
does not have the institutional conditions off the court as it is not a court for purposes of Article 133. [20] Its
proceedings are often statutorily made judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the
Indian Penal Code,[21] and it is statutorily deemed to be a civil court for certain purposes of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
In sum, the salient features of an administrative tribunal are the following: 1. Is established outside the court hierarchy by the executive in exercise, and in accordance with the statutory
provisions;
2. It is an independent forum set up to adjudicate upon a given type of controversies between two adversaries:
administration and citizen;
3. It is required to act Judicially, and performs quasi-judicial functions;
4. Its proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings, and in certain procedural matters it has powers of a
civil court;
5. It is not wedded to the technicalities of the rules of procedure and evidence prescribed by the Code of Civil
procedure and the Evidence Act;
6. It decides non-conventional type of disputes in aid of social control, public development and public security
programs of the welfare state in accordance with the rules off natural justice; and
7. It does not satisfy the institutional conditions of a law court although it has the trappings of a court.

CHAPTER 2
Constitutional Status of Tribunals
2.1 Article 136 of Constitution
The status of tribunal has been recognized by the Constitution. Article 136 of the Constitution empowers the
Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, and sentence or
order passed or made by the any tribunal in India. Likewise, Article 227 enables every High Court to exercise
power of superintendence over all tribunals throughout the territories over which it exercise jurisdiction.
[22] The Constitution (42nd) Amendment Act, 1976, has inserted Articles 323-A and 323-B, by which
Parliament has been authorized to constitute administrative tribunals of disputes and adjudication of matters
specific therein.[23]

2.2 42nd and 44th Amendment

The Tribunals in India have a very engaging history, dating back to the year 1941, when the first Tribunal in
the form of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, was established. The post Independence era saw the insertion
of Articles 323A and 323B by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, giving constitutional recognition
to the Tribunals with effect from 3rd January 1977. Article 323-A exclusively relates to the Administrative
Tribunals. It empowers the Parliament to make laws, providing for the adjudication or trial by Administrative
Tribunals, of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons
appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State Government
or any of their Corporation etc. The said Articles were inserted to enable the Parliament to establish Tribunals,
which could exclude the jurisdiction of all courts including the High Courts. However, it was only in the year
1985 that, in exercise of its powers under the aforesaid Article 323A, Parliament enacted the Administrative
Tribunals Act.[24]
1)

Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act

The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 was the most debatable and controversial amendment in the
Constitutional history of India. It effected drastic and draconian changes in several provisions of the
Constitution not only affecting rights of the citizens but also restricting, limiting, curtailing and even totally
excluding power of judicial review of High Court and of the Supreme Court which was held to be a part of the
basic structure of the Constitution. So far as administrative tribunals are concerned, mainly the amendment
made two changes;

It took away power of the superintendence of High Courts over the administrative tribunals which they posses

under Article 227 of the Constitution.

After Part XIV, it inserted part XIV-A (Art. 323-A and 323-B) by enabling Parliament to constitute
administrative tribunals for purpose specific therein.[25]
Part XIV-A, as inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, open a new dimension in Indian constitutional and
administrative law. Article 323-A enacts that Parliament may, by law, provide for adjudication or trial by
administrative tribunal of disputes and complaints concerning recruitment and condition of service of person
appointed to the public service. Parliament may by specify the jurisdiction, power, and authority of such
tribunals and prescribe the procedure to be followed by them. Article 323-B (I) empowers the appropriate
legislature to provide for the adjudication or trial by tribunal of any disputes, complaints or offences with
respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2). Such law may also provide for the exclusion of
jurisdiction of all courts except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136. The 42nd Amendment
substantially excludes and curtailed power of High Court and of the Supreme of judicial review of
administrative action. It was a retrograde innovation and its object was to take away the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court over tribunals under Article227. However Article 323- A and 323-B were not
self executor inasmuch as they themselves did not take the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 or
Article 227 of the Constitution, but they only enable Parliament or the appropriate legislature to make laws to
set up such tribunals and to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227. It is however
submitted that the above legal position has now been substantially changed in view of a decision of the
Supreme Court in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.[26]

2)

Constitution (44th Amendment) Act

By the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, Article 227 was amended and jurisdiction of High Court over
administrative tribunals has been restored. No amendment, however was made in Part XIV-A, as inserted by
the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts and tribunals
constituted in exercise of powers under Article 323-A and 323-B. For revival of that power and restoration of
majesty of High Courts, legal fraternity had to wait for almost two decades.

2.3 Constitutional validity of the Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985
With a view to easing the congestion of pending cases in various High Courts and other Courts in the country,
Parliament had enacted the Adminisitrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which came into force in July 1985. The
constitutional validity of this Act was challenged before the Supreme Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of
India[27] on the ground that the exclusion of judicial review of the High Court violated the basic structure of
the Constitution. Negativating the contention the court held that no matter the judicial review, which is the
basic feature of the Constitution cannot be violated; but it is within the power of Parliament to amend the
Constitution so as to substitute, in place of High Court, another alternative mechanism of judicial review,
provided it is not less efficacious than the High Court.[28]
This question of constitutionality of the Administrative Service Tribunals Act, 1985 once again arose before
the Supreme Court in the pace-setting case of L. Chandra Kumar[29]. The court in this case held
that Sampath Kumar[30] was decided against the background and that the litigation before the High Courts
had exploded in an unprecedented manner and, therefore, an alternative inquisitional mechanism was

necessary to remedy the situation. But it is self-evident and widely acknowledged truth that tribunals have not
performed well, hence drastic measures were necessary to elevate their standard ensuring that they stand up to
constitutional scrutiny. The court further held that because the constitutional safeguards, which ensure the
independence of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, are not available to the members of the
tribunals, hence, they cannot be considered full and effective substitute for the superior judiciary in discharging
the function of constitutional interpretation. Against this backdrop, the court came to the conclusion that
administrative tribunals cannot perform a substitutional role to the High Court, it can only be supplemental.
Therefore, clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 32.3-B of the Constitution, to the extent, they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226, 227 and 32 of the
Constitution, were held unconstitutional; and for the same reason Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 which contains the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clause, was also held unconstitutional. [31]
It was further observed by the court that the power of judicial review of the constitutional courts is a part of the
inviolable basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be ousted. However, service tribunals shall
continue to be the courts of first instance in service matters, and no writ can be directly filed in the writ courts
on matters within the jurisdiction of tribunals. Though the two-judge Bench, one of whom must be a judicial
member, of the tribunal can determine the constitutionality of any statutory provision, yet it cannot determine
the constitutionality of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. But the exercise of this power shall be subject to
the scrutiny by the Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal is situated. By
bringing back the tribunals within the jurisdiction of the High Courts, the court served two purposes. While
saving the power of judicial review of legislative action vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution, it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the process of adjudication by
the tribunal. The High Court will alsohave the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be of use to
it in finally deciding the matter. In view of this decision the existing provision of direct appeals to the Supreme
Court under Article 136 of theConstitution also stands modified. Now the aggrieved party will be entitled to
move the High Court and from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, he can move the
Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court saved the constitutionality of Section 5(b) by
providing that whenever a question involving the constitutionality of any provision arises, it shall be referred to
a two-member Bench, one of whom must be a judicial member.[32]
Through this classical case, the court has, in one sense, tried to save the jurisdiction of constitutional courts
from encroachment by the legislature by invoking the doctrine of "basic features of the Constitution".
Again, the Supreme Court in State of T.N. v. S. Thangavell[33] held that the members of the tribunal are not
judges and their order is not a judgment or decree under Section 2(9), CPC. At best their statements can be
construed to be only orders for the purpose of decision arrived at by the tribunal under the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985. Keeping in view the subordinate status of the tribunal, the Delhi High Court recently held
that Central administrative tribunal couldnt entertain a public interest litigation. [34]
The Supreme Court has now finally settled the question of jurisdiction of the tribunals in labour matters by
holding that an administrative tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the finding of an Industrial
Tribunal that a person is a workman. A tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction by holding that the department in
which the employee was working was not an industry.[35]Thus, the duality of jurisdiction in labour matter has
now been abolished.
It is also now authoritatively laid down that the doctrine of precedent applies to the administrative tribunals
also. The court held that whenever an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is
filed which involves a question already concluded by an earlier decision, the tribunal must take into account

that decision as precedent and decide accordingly. If the tribunal dissents then the matter must be referred to a
larger Bench.[36]

CHAPTER 3
Tribunalization Of Justice
3.1 Different Kinds of Tribunals
There are many types of tribunals in India which deal with specific sets of cases in order to maintain speed and
efficiency in the delivery of justice. This is the reason why the tribunalization of justice in India has been an
instrumental phenomenon in quick redressal and effective decision making. Two of these tribunals have been
discussed below, namely the Industrial Tribunals and the C.A.T. Tribunals.
3.1.1 Industrial Tribunals:
1. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs) are set up under the provisions
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of industrial disputes arising in Central Sphere. There are 22
CGIT-cum-LCs set up in various States, out of which 10 are under Non-Plan and 12 under Plan Scheme.
[37] The CGIT-cum-LC No.1, Mumbai and CGIT-cum-LC, Kolkata also function as National Tribunals. The
CGIT-cum-LCs are headed by Presiding Officers who are selected from amongst High Court Judges
(serving/retired) or Distt. /Addl. Distt. Judges (serving/retired)
2. The CGIT-cum-LCs have been set up with the objective of maintaining peace and harmony in the industrial
sector by quick and timely disposal of industrial disputes through adjudication so that industrial growth does
not suffer on account of any widespread industrial unrest.[38] Moreover, due to increasing awareness about
their rights and Labour laws among the workers, there is a gradual increase in the number of cases being filed
under the I.D.Act before the CGIT-cum-LCs. Restructuring of workforce on account of application of latest
technology in the industries has also resulted in retrenchment, declaration of surplus etc., which has further led
to an increase in workers grievances.[39]
3.1.2 C.A.T. Tribunal:
The Central Administrative Tribunal has been established for adjudication of disputes with respect to
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the Union or other local authorities within the territory of India or under the control of Government
of India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This was done in pursuance of the
amendment of Constitution of India by Articles 323A. In the statement of objects and reasons on the

introduction of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it was mentioned that the setting up of such
Administrative Tribunals exclusively would go a long way in reducing the burden on the various courts and
reduce pendency and would also provide to the persons covered by the Administrative Tribunals a speedy and
relatively cheap and effective remedy.[40] In addition to Central Government employees, the Government of
India has notified 45 other organizations to bring them within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative
Tribunal.[41] The provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 do not, however, apply to members of
paramilitary forces, armed forces of the Union, officers or employees of the Supreme Court, or to persons
appointed to the Secretariat Staff of either House of Parliament or the Secretariat staff of State/Union Territory
Legislatures.
A Chairman who has been a sitting or retired Judge of a High Court heads the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Besides the Chairman, the authorized strength consists of 16 Vice-Chairmen and 49 Members. The conditions
of service of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Members are governed by the provisions of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and
Members), Rule, 1985, as amended from time to time. As per Rule 15-A, notwithstanding anything contained
in Rule 4 to 15 of the said Rules, the conditions of service and other perquisites available to the Chairman and
Vice-Chairmen of the Central Administrative Tribunal shall be same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High
Court as contained in the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and High Court Judges
(Traveling Allowances) Rules, 1956, as amended from time to time. [42]
3.1.3 Election Commission (EC):
The Election Commission is a tribunal for adjudication of matters pertaining to the allotment of election
symbols to parties and similar other problems. The decision of the commission can be challenged in the
Supreme Court.
4.1.4 Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (FERAB):
The Board has been set up under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A person who is aggrieved by an
order of adjudication for causing breach or committing offences under the Act can file an appeal before the
FERAB.
3.1.5 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal:
This tribunal has been constituted under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has its benches in various
cities and appeals can be filed before it by aggrieved persons against the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner or Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Director of Income tax. An appeal against the order
of the Tribunal lies to the High Court. An appeal also lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court deems fit.
3.1.6 Railway Rates Tribunal:
This-Tribunal was set up under the Indian Railways Act, 1989. It adjudicates matters pertaining to the
complaints against the railway administration. These may be related to the discriminatory or unreasonable
rates, unfair charges or preferential treatment meted out by the railway administration. The appeal against the
order of the Tribunal lies with the Supreme Court.

3.2 Judicial Review Of Decisions of the Tribunals

No appeal, revision or reference against the decision of an administrative tribunal is maintain if the said right is
not conferred by the relevant statue. Provisions can also be made for ouster of jurisdiction of civil court; and
the decision rendered by the tribunal will be treated as final. This statutory finality, will not affect the

jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 and 227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 and 136 of the
Constitution. The power of judicial review if the High Court and the Supreme Court is recognized by the
Constitution and the same cannot be taken away by any statue. If the tribunal have acted without jurisdiction,
however, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or if the order passed by the tribunal is arbitrary,
perverse or mala fide, or it has not observed the principles of natural justice, or there is an error apparent on the
face of the record, or the order is ultra vires the Act, or there is no evidence in support of the order, or the order
is based on irrelevant consideration, or where the findings recorded are conflicting and inconsistent, or gave
injustice is perpetuated by the order passed by the tribunal, or the order is such that no reasonable man would
have made it, the same can be set aside by the High Court or by the Supreme Court.
Denning LJ made the following observation,[43] If the tribunal were to be at liberty to exceed their
jurisdiction without any check by the court, the rule of law would be an end. At the same time, it must be
borne in mind that the power of High Court and the Supreme Court under the Constitution are extremely
limited and they will reluctant to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities and
tribunals under the statue on the ground that the evidence was inadequate or insufficient, or that detailed
reasons were not given. The Supreme Court and the High Court are not court of appeal and revision over the
decision of administrative tribunals.[44]

3.3 Power of Tribunals to Review Decisions

There is no inherent power of review with any authority and the said power can be exercise only if it conferred
by relevant statute.[45] As a general rule, an administrative tribunal becomes fuctus officio (cease to have
control over the matter) as soon as it makes an order and there after cannot review its decision unless the said
power is conferred on it by statue, and the decision must stand unless and until it is set aside by appellate or
revisional authority or by a competent court.
In the Leading case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Governor of Delhi,[46]Pathak J rightly
observed:
Whatever the nature of the proceedings, it is beyond disputed that a review proceeding cannot be equated
with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court will not be
reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by
judicial fallibility.
This, however, does not mean that in absence of any statutory provision an administrative tribunal is
powerless. An administrative tribunal possesses those powers which are inherent in ever judicial tribunal.
Thus, it can reopen ex parte proceedings, if the decision is arrived at without issuing notice to the party
affected, or on the ground that it had committed a mistake in overlooking the changes in the law which has
taken place before passing the order, or to prevent miscarriage of justice, or to correct grave and palpable
errors committed by it, or what the principles of natural justice required it to do.[47]

3.4 Whether Tribunals are Bound by SC and HC

Decisions
Article 141 of the Indian Constitution declares that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on
all court within the territory of India. Undoubtedly, the scope of Article 141 is very wide and it would apply
to ordinary courts as well as administrative tribunals. There is no provision corresponding to Article 141 with

respect to the law declare by the High Court. The question, therefore, arises whether the law declared by a
High Court. The question, therefore, arises whether the law declare by a High Court has a similar binding
effect over all subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the territories in relation to which it exercise
jurisdiction.
Generally, in the absence of specific provisions, the same principle applies to judgment of a High Court. Again,
as the Supreme Court is the Apex Court in the Country, the High Court is the Apex court in the State.
Moreover, like the Supreme Court and High Court, over and above writ jurisdiction has also supervisory
jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the territories in relation to which it
exercise its jurisdiction. Therefore, if any administrative tribunal acts without jurisdiction exceeds its power or
seek to transgress the law laid down by the High Court, the High Court can certainly interfere with the action
of the tribunal.
This question directly arose before the Supreme Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd v. Collector of
Customs.[48]In that case proceedings had been initiated by the Collector of Customs against the petitioner
company on allegation that it had violated the conditions of license and illegally disposed of goods and thereby
committed an offence. The High Court confirmed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court holding that it
cannot be said that a condition of the license amounted to be an order under the Act and therefore, no offence
was committed by the company. The High Court also passed an order directing the seized goods to be sold and
the sale proceeds to be deposited in the court. After those proceedings, a notice was issued by the Collector on
the company to show cause why the amount should not be confiscated and the penalty should not be imposed.
It was contended by the company that when once the High Court had decided that the breach of a condition of
the license cannot be said to be breach of order, the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue the show-cause
notice. It was submitted that the decision of a High Court on a point is binding on all subordinate court and
inferior tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction and the notice was therefore, required to be quashed.
Where the tribunal notices a decision of the Supreme Court and tries to distinguish it with distinguishing
features, the approach is highly objectionable.[49] A deliberate attempt to flout a judgment of a superior court
may amount to contempt of court.[50]

CHAPTER 4
Administrative Service Tribunal
4.1 General Overview of Working of Central
Administrative Tribunal
With a view to easing the congestion of pending cases in various High Courts and other Courts in the country,
Parliament had enacted the Adminisitrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which came into force in July, 1985 and the
Administrative Tribunals were established in November, 1985 at Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta and Allahabad.
[51] Today, there are 17 Benches of the Tribunal located throughout the country wherever the seat of a High

Court is located, with 33 Division Benches. In addition, circuit sittings are held at Nagpur, Goa, Aurangabad,
Jammu, Shimla, Indore, Gwalior, Bilaspur, Ranchi, Pondicherry, Gangtok, Port Blair, Shillong, Agartala,
Kohima, Imphal, Itanagar, Aizwal and Nainital.[52]
The Central Administrative Tribunal has been established for adjudication of disputes with respect to
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the Union or other local authorities within the territory of India or under the control of Government
of India and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This was done in pursuance of the
amendment of Constitution of India by Articles 323A.[53] This Act authorizes central government to establish
administrative tribunals for central services and on the application of States even for States services as well as
for local bodies and other authorities including public corporation. From the date of establishment of tribunals
all courts except the Supreme Court under Art 136 lose their jurisdiction with respect to the matter falling
within the jurisdiction of the tribunals.[54]
In the statement of objects and reasons on the introduction of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it was
mentioned that the setting up of such Administrative Tribunals exclusively would go a long way in reducing
the burden on the various courts and reduce pendency and would also provide to the persons covered by the
Administrative Tribunals a speedy and relatively cheap and effective remedy. In addition to Central
Government employees, the Government of India has notified 45 other organizations to bring them within the
jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
do not, however, apply to members of paramilitary forces, armed forces of the Union, officers or employees of
the Supreme Court, or to persons appointed to the Secretariat Staff of either House of Parliament or the
Secretariat staff of State/Union Territory Legislatures.[55]
A tribunal shall consist of Chairman and such number of Vice-Chairmen and other members as appropriate
Government may deem fit. They are appointed by the President in the case of Central tribunals and by the
President in consultation with the Governors or Governors in case of State or joint Tribunals. The
qualifications regarding that are laid down in the Act.[56]
A Chairman who has been a sitting or retired Judge of a High Court heads the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Besides the Chairman, the authorized strength consists of 16 Vice-Chairmen and 49 Members. The conditions
of servicThe said Articles were inserted to enable the Parliament to establish Tribunals, which could exclude
the jurisdiction of all courts including the High Courts. However, it was only in the year 1985 that, in exercise
of its powers under the aforesaid Article 323A, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act.e of
Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Members are governed by the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Members), Rule, 1985,
as amended from time to time. As per Rule 15-A, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 4 to 15 of the
said Rules, the conditions of service and other perquisites available to the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the
Central Administrative Tribunal shall be same as admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court as contained in
the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and High Court Judges (Traveling Allowances)
Rules, 1956, as amended from time to time.[57]
After the constitution of the Tribunal in 1985, in the beginning, under Section 29 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal received on transfer from the High Courts and Subordinate Courts 13,350
cases, which were pending there. Thereafter, till November 2001, 3,71,448 cases were instituted in the
Tribunal. Out of these, 3,33,598 cases have already been disposed of. The total number of cases received on
transfer as well as those instituted directly at various Benches of the Tribunal till 30.06.2006 is 4,76,336, of
which the Tribunal has disposed of 4,51,751 cases leaving a balance of 24585 cases which constitutes disposal
of 94%. The institution of cases in the Tribunal has increased tremendously but the rate of disposal of the cases

has also quantatively increased and in the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi, the disposal is 94%.
During the year 2000, over 91% of cases of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal have been upheld in Writ
Petition by the Delhi High Court and so quantitively also the Tribunal has performed well. [58]
The Tribunal follows the principles of natural justice in deciding cases and the procedure, prescribed by
Evidence Act or CPC does not apply. The Tribunal is also a specialized organization, which deals with only
service matters in respect of the Central Government employees and other employees who have been notified.
Principal Bench here is dealing presently with the cases instituted in the year 2005 and 2006 and the total
number of cases pending at the end of June, 2006 is 2708. The Central Administrative Tribunal is doing its best
to expedite the disposal of cases. For the year 2001 and right up to June, 2006 the overall disposal of cases has
exceeded the number of freshly instituted cases, as a result of which the total pendency has reduced. Where the
pendency of cases is on higher side in any Bench, Members are being deputed from other Benches to that
Bench for wiping out the pendency. The original Applications in the Principal Bench are generally disposed of
in four to six months, thus justifying the aim of the Legislature in setting up the Administrative Tribunals to
provide a speedy, relatively inexpensive and efficacious remedy to the employees who feel aggrieved. [59]
The Central Administrative Tribunal is empowered to prescribed its own rules of practice for discharging its
functions subject to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rules made there under. For this purpose, the
Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 have been notified. Similarly, for the purpose of laying
down a common procedure for all Benches of the Tribunal, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules, 1987 have been notified. Under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the Tribunal has
been conferred the power to exercise the same jurisdiction and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a
High Court.[60]
The employees of the Central Administrative Tribunal are required to discharge their duties under the general
superintendence of the Chairman. Salaries and allowances and conditions of service of the officers and other
employees of the Tribunal are specified by the Central Government. Pursuant to these provisions the Central
Government have notified the Central Administrative Tribunal Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985.
There are 1288 posts classified in 38 categories for assisting the Tribunal in discharging its functions. The
Central Administrative Tribunal is a Growing institution with increasing responsibilities and load of work. [61]

4.2 Historical Account of Establishment of Central

Administrative Tribunal
The Tribunals in India have a very engaging history, dating back to the year 1941, when the first Tribunal in
the form of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, was established. For a long time after independence, a search
was going on for a mechanism to relieve the courts, including High Courts and the Supreme Court, from the
burden of service litigation, which formed a substantial portion of pending litigation. As early as 1958, this
problem engaged the attention of the Law Commission, which recommended for the establishment of tribunals
consisting of judicial and administrative members to decide service matters.[62] In 1969, Administrative
Reform Commission also recommended for the establishment of civil service tribunals, both for the Central
and State civil servants.[63] Central Government appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of J.C. Shah,
J. of the Indian Supreme Court in 1969, which also made similar recommendation. In 1975, Swaran Singh
Committee again recommended for the setting up of service tribunals.[64]
The idea of setting up service tribunals also found favour with the Indian Supreme Court, which in Kamal
KantiDutta v. Union of India[65] advocated for setting up of service tribunals to save the courts from

avalanche of writ petitions and appeals in service matters. In the meantime, various States had established their
own service tribunals. Service tribunal was also established in Andhra Pradesh in 1973 by the Constitution
(32nd Amendment) Act, 1973.
It was against this backdrop that Parliament passed the 42nd Amendment, which added Part XIV-A in the
Constitution. Articles 323-A and 323-B enabled Parliament to constitute administrative tribunals for dealing
with certain matters specified therein. Article 323-A provided that Parliament may by law provide for the
adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the 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 owned or controlled by the government. Parliament was further
empowered to prescribe by law the jurisdiction, power, authority and procedure of such tribunals and also to
exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except that of the Supreme Court under Article 136. Empowered by these
enabling provisions of the Constitution, Parliament enacted Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the
establishment of administrative service tribunals for deciding service disputes of civil servants of the Centre as
well as of the States, which was amended in 1986.[66]
Thus, the enactment of Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985 opened a new chapter in administering justice to
the aggrieved government servants. It owes its origin to Article 323 A of the Constitution which empowers the
Central Government to set up by an Act of Parliament, the Administrative Tribunals for adjudication of
disputes and complains with respective recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the
public services and posts in connection with the Union and the States.[67]

4.3 General Provisions of the Act

Section 4(1) of the Act provides for the establishment of Central administrative tribunals (CATs). It also
empowers the Central Government to establish an administrative tribunal for any State on receipt of such a
request to establish an administrative tribunal for any State by the State Government. [68] Section 5 provides
for the composition of tribunals and Benches thereof. According to sub-section (i) of Section 5, each tribunal
shall consist of a Chairman and such number of Vice-Chairman and other members as the appropriate
government may deem fit. Section 5(z) further provides that a Bench shall consist of one judicial member and
an administrative member. Section 5(4)(b) authorises the Chairman to transfer the Vice-Chairman of a Bench
or other members thereof to any other Bench.[69]
Section 6(1)(2) and (3) of the Act prescribes qualifications for appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman,
Judicial Member and Administrative Members. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the
Chairman unless he is or has been a judge of the High Court or has, for at least two years, held the post of a
Secretary to the Government of India, or any other post under the Central or State Government carrying a pay
scale which is not less than that of a Secretary of the Government of India.[70]Therefore, a retired person can
also be appointed as Chairman of the administrative tribunal if he fulfils any of the above qualifications. [71]
Similarly, a person shall not be qualified for appointment as Vice-Chairman unless he is or has been a judge of
a High Court, or Secretary to the Government of India or of any State, carrying the pay scale of not less than
that of the Secretary to the Government of India; or held the post as Additional Secretary to the Government of
India, or has, for a period of not less than three years, held office as a Judicial Member or an Administrative
Member.
The qualifications for appointment as Judicial Member are laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act.
It lays down that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judicial Member unless he is, or has been,

or is qualified to be, a judge of a High Court; or has been a member of the Indian legal service and has held a
post of Grade I of that service for at least three years.[72]
For the appointment of an Administrative Member, it is necessary that he has for at least for two years held the
post of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India, or any other post under the Central or State
Government, carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary to the Government
of India; or has, for at least three years, held the post of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, or any
other post under the Central or State Government, carrying a pay scale which is not less than that of a Joint
Secretary to the Government of India. In addition, he must have adequate administrative experience.
The appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and every other member of CAT is to be made by the President
of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Similarly, the appointment of Chairman, ViceChairman and other members of an administrative tribunal for a State is to be made by the President of India in
consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the concerned State. [73]
The tenure of the office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman has been fixed as five years or 65 years of age,
whichever is earlier, and 62 years for members. Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowance and
Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 framed under Section 35(2)(c)
of the Act provide under Rule 5 that Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members on appointment to the tribunal, if
they are in Central or State service, would seek retirement from that service and that in the case of a sitting
judge of a High Court, who is appointed as Chairman or Vice-Chairman, his service in the tribunal shall be
treated as actual service within the meaning of paragraph II(b)(i) of Part D of the Second Schedule to the
Constitution.
Rule 5 further provides that on retirement he shall be entitled to receive pension and gratuity in accordance
with the retirement rules applicable to him. Under Section 10 of the Act, Central Government has power to
prescribe by rules the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service, including pension,
gratuity and other retiral benefits. However, these cannot be changed to the disadvantage of the person after his
appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of the tribunal.[74]
Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of a tribunal can resign from office by notice in writing under his hand
addressed to the President of India. However, the resigner shall continue to hold office until the expiry of three
months from the date of receipt of such notice by the President, or until a person is duly appointed as his
successor enters upon his office, or until the expiry of his term of office, whichever is the earliest, or unless he
is permitted by the President to relinquish his office sooner.[75]
In the same manner, sub-section (2.) of Section 9 of the Act lays down the procedure for removal. It lays down
that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or the President of India could remove any Member from office on ground
of proved misbehavior or incapacity. For this purpose, an enquiry is required to be made by a judge of the
Supreme Court after such Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member had been informed of the charges
against him, and he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
Procedure for such an enquiry can be regulated by the Central Government by framing rules.[76]
Section 2 of the Act further provides that the Chairman, Vice- Chairman and any Member of a State or Central
tribunal, on ceasing to hold such office, shall become ineligible for further employment under the Government
of India, the Government of State, including employment under any other authority within the territory of India
or under the control of the government,- or under any corporation or society owned or controlled by the
government. However, a Chairman, Vice-Chairman or any Member of CAT can be appointed as Chairman,
Vice-Chairman or Member of the State tribunal and vice versa. Furthermore, after ceasing to hold office, such
functionaries cannot appear, act or plead before any tribunal where they were Chairman, Vice-Chairman or
Member.[77]

Besides the establishment of Central and State administrative tribunals, the Act makes provision for the
establishment of joint administrative tribunal for two or more States on the request of such States." Sub-section
(5) of Section 4 inserted by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment)
Act, 1986 provides that the Central Government may designate all or any of the members of Bench or Benches
of the State administrative tribunal as member of the Bench or Benches of CAT and vice versa. [78]
According to Section 5(1), each tribunal shall consist of a Chairman, and such number of Vice-Chairmen and
Judicial and Administrative Members as the appropriate government may deem fit. However, subject to the
other provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the tribunal may be exercised by Benches
of such tribunal. Each Bench is to consist of one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member.
[79] Chairman has also been given the power to transfer a member from one Bench to another.
Section 14 of the Act confers jurisdiction, powers and authority on CAT and provides that from 1 November
1985, the tribunal shall exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that
day by all courts, except the Supreme Court, in relation to recruitment, matters concerning recruitment and all
service matters of Central civil servants.[80]Section 15 confers similar jurisdiction on State administrative
tribunal. The language of Section 14(1) is wide enough to cover all service matters concerning the persons
covered under the Act where the allegation is the violation of Article 311 or any service rule framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution, including Articles 14 and 16.[81] Therefore, even in cases of infringement of
fundamental rights of the civil servants, the forum will be the tribunal. Thus, the tribunal has authority to
decide the constitutionality of any statute, rule, regulation or notification.[82] For this purpose, the tribunal
can exercise all jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable by all courts, including the writ jurisdiction of
High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ordinarily, the tribunal shall not admit an application unless the applicant has exhausted the remedy available
under the service rules as given under Sec. 20. Sec. 21 provides for a period of limitation of one year is also
provided for making an application from the date on which the final order was made by the government
against the civil servant. Under Sec. 17 the tribunal has power to punish for its own contempt. Sec. 2 provides
that the tribunal can be moved by filing an application before the Registrar of the tribunal along with the
prescribed fee of Rs. 50 and relevant documents. Sec. 19(3) provides that on receipt of an application, the
tribunal shall, if it is satisfied after such enquiry, as it may deem necessary, that the application is a fit case for
adjudication or trial by it, admit such application; but where the tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily
reject the application after recording its reasons. As per Sec. 23, an applicant can even send an application
through post and can plead the case with or without an advocate.[83]
The Act provides for an informal and non-technical trial procedure. The tribunal is not bound by the technical
rules of Civil Procedure Code,1908 (CPC), but is only required to act in conformity with the rules of natural
justice. However, the tribunal shall have the powers of a civil court under the CPC in respect of matters
specified in the Act, as given under Sec. 22.
Sec. 24-27 provide that the tribunal cannot pass ex parte interim order but under certain circumstances, it can
grant interim order for a period not exceeding14 days. On application, Chairman has the power to transfer a
case from one Bench to another. The decision of the tribunal shall be by majority, but if the members are
equally divided the matter may be referred to the Chairman. Because the tribunal exercises the jurisdiction of
the High Court, it can issue writs, but generally tribunals do not issue writs. Order passed by the tribunal shall
be final and shall not be called in question in any court including High Court, except the Supreme Court by
way of special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution, because an administrative tribunal set up
under the Act is a substitute of and supplemental to the High Court in service matters. [84]

As a necessary consequence to this, the tribunals are not under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and are
not bound by their decisions; no matter they may have a persuasive value. The tribunal has inherited the
jurisdiction of the High Court in service matter, therefore, in exercise of its power of judicial review, it cannot
interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that it is disproportionate to the
proved misconduct, if the findings as to misconduct are supported by legal evidence. [85]
The Act does not provide for any appeal or review of the order of the tribunal except that a person aggrieved
may file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, after the decision of the Supreme Court
in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India[86], service tribunals have been brought under the jurisdiction of High
Courts and their decision now shall be appealable before the High Courts also.
Under Section 15, an administrative tribunal has power to interfere with the findings of an inferior tribunal;
however, such power is limited to cases where inferior tribunal has allowed inadmissible evidence, or has
prevented evidence, or has based its conclusion on an erroneous view of law, or the conclusion reached is such
which no reasonable man can draw on the existing material on record. [87]
Section 3(q)(v) of the Act gives wide jurisdiction to the tribunal by using the expression "any other matter
whatsoever". But wide does not mean unlimited. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rasila Rani[88] held
that matter relating to eviction of unauthorised occupants from government quarters does not come within the
purview and jurisdiction of administrative tribunals. In the same manner, a tribunal cannot interfere with the
discretionary jurisdiction of the State in matters relating to determination of conditions of service; alteration
thereof by amending rules, Constitution, classification or abolition of posts, cadres, or categories of service;
amalgamation; bifurcation of departments; reconstitution; restructuring of patterns etc. However, this is subject
to limitations and restrictions envisaged in the Constitution.[89]

CHAPTER 5
Conclusion and Suggestions
It has been noted since the mid of the twentieth century particularly after the second world war that in the
modem state vast expansion of social legislation and unprecedented growth of the administrative process has
taken place. The problems arising out of this development have become the most important issue of law and its
administration in the present age. They have affected many aspects of the legal system. Whatever be the causes
and sources of the growth,every student of law observes that the problem of control of administrative process
has assumed gigantic proportions.
Administrative tribunals resolve disputes between, for example, the citizen and an officer of a government
agency or between individuals in an area of law in which the government has legislated the conduct of their
relations.
According to Seervai, the development of administrative law in a welfare state has made administrative
tribunals a necessity[90].

Administrative tribunals are authorities outside the ordinary court system, which interpret and apply the laws
when acts of public administration are questioned in formal suits by the courts or by other established methods.
They are not a court nor are they an executive body. Rather they are a mixture of both. They are judicial in the
sense that the tribunals have to decide facts and apply them impartially, without considering executive policy.
They are administrative because the reasons for preferring them to the ordinary courts of law are
administrative reasons. The Supreme Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand[91]laid down the
following characteristics or tests to determine whether an authority is a tribunal or not:
1. Power of adjudication must be derived from a statute or statutory rule.
2. It must possess the trappings of a court and thereby be vested with the power to summon witnesses,
administer oath, and compel production of evidence, etc.
3. Tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence.
4. They are to exercise their functions objectively and judicially and to apply the law and resolve disputes
independently of executive policy.
5. Tribunals are supposed to be independent and immune from any administrative interference in the discharge
of their judicial functions.
Administrative tribunals have been established by statute, in the main, to resolve:
Disputes between a private citizen and a central government department, such as claims to social security

benefits;
Disputes which require the application of specialised knowledge or expertise, such as the assessment of

compensation following the compulsory purchase of land; and

Other disputes which by their nature or quantity are considered unsuitable for the ordinary courts, such as

fixing a fair rent for premises or immigration appeals.

The main reasons for the creation of administrative tribunals may be identified as:
The relief of congestion in the ordinary courts of law (the courts could not cope with the case-load that is now

borne by social security tribunals, employment tribunals and the like);

The provision of a speedier and cheaper procedure than that afforded by the ordinary courts (tribunals avoid

the formality of the ordinary courts); and

The desire to have specific issues dealt with by persons with an intimate knowledge and experience of the
problems involved (which a court with a wide general jurisdiction might not acquire).
India is a vast country. The Supreme Court sits only in Delhi and High Courts in Capital cities of the states. For
every infringement of right an ordinary citizen as well as government servant cannot afford to move to the
proper court. In case administrative tribunals are introduced then justice would be easier and also cheaper to
obtain, particularly in the present rising inflation. The Administrative Tribunals were conceived as and
constitute an effective and real substitute for the High Courts as regards service matters. Moreover, the power
of judicial review of the High Courts cannot be called as inviolable as that of the Supreme Court. The very
objective behind the establishment of the Administrative Tribunals is defeated if all the cases adjudicated by
them have to go before the concerned High Courts.
Another advantage of the administrative tribunal would be that they would have not only the legal but also
other type of experts as might be needed. Hence justice would be speedily given by those who know. Moreover
tribunals would also have the advantage of being able to translate the state policies into action thus helping the
growth of the country.
A tribunal or Chamber President is responsible for the day-to-day judicial administration of their tribunal or
(within the new simplified two-tier structure) their chamber. They act as a vital link between the Senior

President of Tribunals; the judicial officers of their tribunal, and the senior judiciary outside the Tribunals
Service.
Many cases involve individuals putting their own case, without legal assistance, so the system needs to be
accessible to all. Tribunal judges often help to ensure this, by guiding non-legally qualified parties through the
necessary procedures, if necessary.
A radical amendment was caused within the constitutional law through section forty-six of the Constitution
(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, that inserted new half XIVA on Tribunals within the Constitution.
Article 323A empowers Parliament to produce, by law, for the assessment or trial by administrative tribunals
of disputes and complaints with regard to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public
services and posts in reference to the affairs of the Union or of any State. The law might give for the institution
of an administrative tribunal for the Union and a separate administrative judicature for every State or for 2 or
more States. The law might eliminate adjudication of disputes concerning service matters from the hands of the
civil courts and also the High Courts.
Pursuant to the provisions of article 323A, Parliament enacted the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act) to
determine an administrative tribunal for the Union, viz., the Central administrative tribunal and a separate
administrative tribunal for a State or a Joint administrative tribunal for 2 or more States. The establishment of
administrative Tribunals became necessary since an oversized range of cases concerning service matters were
unfinished before various courts. it was expected that the setting up of the administrative Tribunals wouldn't
solely cut back the burden of courts, but would additionally give speedy relief to the aggrieved public servants.
In S. P. Sampath Kumar[92] , the Supreme Court directed the carrying out of certain measures with a view to
making sure the functioning of the administrative Tribunals on constitutionally sound principles. The changes
were caused within the Act by an amending Act (Act 19 of 1986). Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
article 32 was improved. Constitutional validity of the Act was finally upheld in S. P. Sampath Kumar subject,
of course, to certain amendments concerning the form and content of the administrative Tribunals. The advised
amendments were applied by another amending Act (Act 51 of 1987).
Thus became the administrative Tribunals an efficient and real substitute for the High Courts.
In 1997, a seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar[93], held that clause 2 (d) of article
323A and clause 3(d) of article 323B, to the extent they empower Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the
High Courts and also the Supreme Court under articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are
unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and also the exclusion of jurisdiction clauses altogether different
legislations enacted under the aegis of articles 323A and 323B would, to a similar extent, be unconstitutional.
The Court held that the jurisdiction bestowed upon the High Courts under articles 226/227 and upon the
Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution is an element of the inviolable basic structure of our
Constitution. All decisions of the administrative judicatures are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of
the high court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal involved falls.
By bringing back the tribunals within the jurisdiction of the High Courts, the court served 2 functions. Whereas
saving the power of judicial review of legislative action vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution, it'll make sure that flippant claims are filtered out through the method of adjudication by
the tribunal. The high court also will have the advantage of a reasoned decision on merits, which is able to be
of use thereto in finally deciding the matter. In sight of this decision the prevailing provision of direct appeals
to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution conjointly stands changed. Currently the aggrieved
party are going to be entitled to move the high court and from the decision of the Division Bench of the high
court, he will move the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court saved the

constitutionality of Section 5(b) by providing that whenever an issue involving the constitutionality of any
provision arises, it shall be referred to a two-member Bench, one among whom must be a judicial member.
Through this classical case, the court has, in one sense, tried to avoid wasting the jurisdiction of constitutional
courts from encroachment by the assembly by invoking the doctrine of "basic structure of the Constitution".

Bibliography
BOOKS REFERRED
1. C.K. THAKKER, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 226 (1996).
2. H. M. SERWAI, CONSTITUTIONSL LAW OF INDIA (1968 ed.).
3. H. P. CHATTOPADHYAY, INDUBAGHEL, THEORY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 211 (1st ed. 2009).
4. HISTORY OF LAW OF ENGLAND, VOL. I, 57-63 (4thEdn.).
5. I. P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 605-606 (8th ed. 2012).
6. M. P. JAIN, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 246-248 (1996).
7. R. NAYAK, ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN INDIA 38 (1989).
8. WADE & FORSYTH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 771(10th ed. 2009).
9. WEBSTERS NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 1517 (1972); CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY, 1530-1531 (2002).

ARTICLES REFERRED
1. ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM COMMISSION, REPORT ON PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION (1969).
2. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, FOURTEENTH REPORT, REFORM OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION (1958).
3. Perspective, SLJ (JOURNAL SECTION) 1-5 (1986).

WEB RESOURCES
1. Abhishek Kumar Jha, Administrative Tribunals of India- a Study In The Light Of Decided Cases, (October 20,
2013),
http://www.academia.edu/4614327/ADMINISTRATIVE_TRIBUNALS_OF_INDIA_A_Study_in_the_light_o
f_decided_cases.
2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi, Central Administrative Tribunal: Introduction,
(October 23, 2013) http://cgat.gov.in.
3. Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunals, Northern Ireland, Industrial Tribunals, (October 30,
2013),www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/index/employment_tribunals/industrial_tribunals.htm.
4. Ministry of Labor and Employment, Government of India, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor
Courts,(October 30, 2013),labour.gov.in/content/division/central-govt-industrial-tribunal.php.

5. Rajib Hassan, Judicial Review of the Decisions of Administrative Tribunals by the Supreme Court and High
Courts: A Long-standing Controversy- Settled (October 26, 2013), http://www.articlesbase.com/national-statelocal-articles/judicial-review-of-the-decisions-of-administrative-tribunals-by-the-supreme-court-and-highcourts-a-long-standing-controversy-settled-4912243.html.
6. Tribunalisation in India, http://legalsutra.org/1446/tribunalisation-in-india/ (last updated October 16, 2011).

[1]C.K. THAKKER, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 226 (1996).

[2]WEBSTERS NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 1517 (1972); CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY, 1530-1531 (2002).
[3]Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520: (1955) 1 SCR 267.
[4] Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., AIR 1950 SC188 : AIR 1950 SCR 459.
[5]WADE & FORSYTH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 771(10th ed. 2009).
[6]Supra note 1, at 239.
[7]R. NAYAK, ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN INDIA 38 (1989).
[8]M. P. JAIN, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 246-248 (1996).
[9]Supra note 1, at 66.
[10]Tribunalisation in India, http://legalsutra.org/1446/tribunalisation-in-india/ (last updated October 16, 2011).
[11]Abhishek Kumar Jha, Administrative Tribunals Of India- A Study In The Light Of Decided Cases, (October 20,
2013),
http://www.academia.edu/4614327/ADMINISTRATIVE_TRIBUNALS_OF_INDIA_A_Study_in_the_light_of_dec
ided_cases.
[12] Ibid.
[13]TAKWANI, supra note 6, at 240-241.
[14] Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595, 1599: (1965) 2 SCR 366; Durga
Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520: (1955) 2 SCR 267.
[15]TAKWANI, supra note 6, at 241.
[16] Ibid.
[17]Supra note 4.
[18]Jatia Estate Ltd. v. VithalbhaiBhimji, 60 CWN 927.
[19] Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
[20]Supra note 12.
[21]Section 193 Punishment for false evidence- Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial
proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 228 Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding- Whoever
intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in

any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
[22]TAKWANI, supra note 6, at 237.
[23]The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 273.
[24] Justice D.K. Jain, Central Administrative Tribunal- A Pulsating Vibrant Dispensation: An Introspection, Address
at the Chandigarh Judicial Academy on the eve of Silver Jubilee of the Chandigarh Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (November 19, 2011).
[25]Rajib Hassan, Judicial Review of the Decisions of Administrative Tribunals by the Supreme Court and High
Courts: A Long-standing Controversy- Settled (October 26, 2013), http://www.articlesbase.com/national-state-localarticles/judicial-review-of-the-decisions-of-administrative-tribunals-by-the-supreme-court-and-high-courts-a-longstanding-controversy-settled-4912243.html.
[26] L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261: AIR 1997 SC 1125.
[27]S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC124 : AIR 1987 SC 386.
[28]I. P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 605-606 (8th ed. 2012).
[29]Supra note 26.
[30]Supra note 27.
[31]MASSEY, supra note 28.
[32] Ibid.
[33]T.N. v. S. Thangavell, (1997) 2 SCC 349: AIR 1997 SC 1183.
[34] Cabinet Secretary Extension Case (T.S.R Subramanian, In Re), 31-1-1998 (Del.).
[35] Ajay D. Panalkar v. Pune Telecom Deptt., (1997) 2 SCC 469.
[36] K. AjitBabu v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC473 : AIR 1997 SC 3177.
[37]Ministry of Labor and Employment, Government of India, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor
Courts, (October 30, 2013),labour.gov.in/content/division/central-govt-industrial-tribunal.php.
[38]Industrial Tribunal (Central Procedure) Rules, 1954.
[39]Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunals, Northern Ireland, Industrial Tribunals, (October 30,
2013),www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/index/employment_tribunals/industrial_tribunals.htm.
[40]H. P. CHATTOPADHYAY, INDUBAGHEL, THEORY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 211 (1st ed. 2009).
[41] Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi, Central Administrative Tribunal: Introduction,
(October 23, 2013) http://cgat.gov.in.
[42]CHATTOPADHYAY, supra note 40.
[43] R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex P. Gilmore, (1957) I QB 574, 586: 1957 I All ER 796, 801 (CA);
also see,HISTORY OF LAW OF ENGLAND,VOL. I, 57-63 (4thEdn.).
[44] State of A.P v. C.V. Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557: AIR 1957 SC 2151; Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C.
chandrasekaran, AIR 1964 SC 107: (1964) 5 SCR 869; Bombay Union of Journalist v. State of Bombay, AIR 1964
SC 1617: (1964) 6 SCR 22; Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80; AIR 1979 SC 75;
PremKakar v. State of Haryana, (1976) 3 SCC 433: AIR 1976 SC 1474, Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2
SCC 177: AIR 1989 SC 1185.
[45] Patel NarshiThakershi v. PradyumanSinghjiArjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844: AIR 1970 SC 1273; Mahar Singh
Nayak Chand v, Haunihal, (1973) 3 SCC 731: AIR 1972 SC 2533; Majir Chandra Bhan Singh v. LatafatUllah Khan,
(1979) I SCC 321: AIR 1978SC 1814; R.R. Verma v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 402: AIR 1980 SC 1461.
[46]Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167, 172: AIR 1980 SC 674, 678.
[47]Shivdeo v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, 1911.
[48]East India Commercial Co. Ltd v. Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893: (1963) 3 SCR 338.

[49] Union of India v. KantilalHematranPandya, (1995) 3SCC 17: AIR 1995 SC 1349.
[50]BaradakantaMisra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) I SCC 166: AIR 1973 SC 2466.
[51]Supra note 41.
[52]TAKWANI, supra note 6, at 237.
[53]Supra note 41.
[54]Supra note 11.
[55] Ibid.
[56]CHATTOPADHYAY, supra note 40.
[57]Ibid, at 212.
[58]CHATTOPADHYAY, supra note 40, at 212.
[59]TAKWANI, supra note 6, at 239.
[60] Ibid.
[61]CHATTOPADHYAY, supra note 40, at 212.
[62]LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, FOURTEENTH REPORT, REFORM OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION (1958).
[63]ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM COMMISSION, REPORT ON PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION (1969).
[64]Perspective, SLJ (JOURNAL SECTION) 1-5 (1986).
[65] Kamal KantiDutta v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 38: 1980 SCC (L&S) 485: AIR 1980 SC 2056.
[66]TAKWANI, supra note 6, at 234.
[67]Supra note 24.
[68]The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
[69]MASSEY, supra note 28, at 601.
[70]The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
[71]MASSEY, supra note 28, at 601.
[72] The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 6.
[73] The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 6(4) to (7). See also, S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1
SCC 124.
[74]MASSEY, supra note 28, at 600-605.
[75] The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 9.
[76] The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 9(3).
[77]MASSEY, supra note 28, at 600-605.
[78] The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 4(5).
[79] The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 5(2).
[80] The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 14.
[81]MASSEY, supra note 28, at 600-605.
[82] J.B. Chopra V. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC422 : AIR 1987 SC 357.
[83]MASSEY, supra note 28, at 604.
[84]Supra note 82.
[85] Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC177 : AIR 1989 SC 1185.
[86]Supra note 26.
[87]KendriyaVidyalayaSangthan v. Subhash Sharma, (2001) 10 SCC 517.
[88]Union of India v. Rasila Rani, (2001) 10 SCC 623.
[89]P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632.
[90]H. M. SERWAI, CONSTITUTIONSL LAW OF INDIA (1968 ed.).

[91]Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1963 SC 677 at 687.

[92]Supra note 27.
[93]Supra note 26.