Yashvi Parekh v. Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/51/2025 Yashvi Parekh Vs.

Union of India and others Mr.Terence D Cruz ...

for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ...

for the respondents November 6, 2025 [SR] Item No.2 By this application the petitioner seeks a direction that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, to constitute a special bench to resolve conflicting views of two Division Benches.

WPCT is the nomenclature/Code for an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed before the Division Bench from any order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal with regard to service conditions of any employee holding a civil post under the central government. The prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed by us, inasmuch as, there is no order which is impugned before this Bench.

OA/351/00840/2023 was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated June 06, 2024 passed by the Tribunal. By the order impugned, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the pending statutory appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal was preferred from the order of dismissal of the petitioner, upon conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding.

The Bench recorded that the petitioner was dismissed from service on July 23, 2022, after due enquiry. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority after 115 days from receipt of the copy of the order of dismissal, although, the time for filing the appeal was 45 days.

The application of the respondent for extension of time to dispose of the appeal was also rejected by the learned Tribunal. Yet upon ignorance of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985, the appeal was directed to be considered. The Bench recorded that the Union Public Service Commission had recommended that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges and the petitioner should be allowed to retire compulsorily, upon withholding of 30% of his pension.

The Bench was of the view that the Tribunal had abdicated its responsibility, by not considering the provision of Section 19(4) of the Administration Tribunal Act 1985, which provided that all departmental proceedings and appeals would automatically abate, once the original application was admitted. The Tribunal was directed to consider the OA afresh on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight months. The petitioner was also offered a reduction of punishment by the Bench, as per the opinion of UPSC which the petitioner refused.

As per the direction, the OA was disposed of on March 20, 2025 and the following directions were passed: "5.6 In view of the discussions above, OA is allowed with the following directions upon the respondents: (i) Applicant's period of suspension from 21.10.2019 to 23.07.2022 is to be treated as having been spent on duty entitling him to all consequential benefits including his full salary.

(ii) Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.07.2022 dismissing the applicant from service with immediate effect having been set aside, the applicant's services will deem to have been restored w.e.f 23.07.2022 that is the date of his dismissal from service. He will be paid full salary for the period from 23.07.2022 to 31.07.2022.

(iii) The applicant will be entitled to full pensionary and retiral benefits upon his retirement from service w.e.f 01.08.2022.

(iv) Respondents will pay all salary, pension and retiral dues to the applicant as directed above, within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in their office.

6. OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs." Aggrieved by the said order, the union preferred another WPCT, being WPCT 31 of 2025. Another Division Bench found that although, there was an order of the earlier Bench directing that the OA should be disposed of on merits, the Tribunal reiterated its observations made in the earlier order which was set aside by the first Division Bench dated June 6, 2024. The Bench recorded that although, submissions were made by the parties, the Tribunal did not deal with the merits. The Division Bench directed that the Tribunal ought to have decided the matter on merits in terms of the Order dated November 11, 2024 and dispose of the application within eight weeks by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties the order was set aside.

It was found that the Tribunal did not act on the basis of the decision dated November 11, 2024 passed in WPCT 38 of 2024.

A review application was preferred by the petitioner before the second Division Bench from the above decision, but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution.

A prayer is made now before us to refer the dispute to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench. This is not the proper procedure. Challenge to any order of the Tribunal or any inaction or non action on the part of the Tribunal in discharging its quasi-judicial function, can be entertained by us, but we do not have any jurisdiction to decide which of the Division Benches were correct or whether there were conflicting views. Both the Division Benches were of the view that the original application should be decided by the Tribunal on its own merits. Whether the Division Benches were correct in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh determination of the issue on merits, cannot be adjudicated before us. The observation made by each Bench on the provision of Section 19(4), cannot be open to challenge before us.

Under such circumstances, WPCT 51 of 2025 is disposed of. The remedy of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum against the order of the second Division Bench, in WPCT 31 of 2015 is kept open.

Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon'ble Court. ( Shampa Sarkar, J. ) ( Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. )