CAT order on Cabinet Secy’s extension stayed

NEW DELHI, January 3: The Delhi high court today stayed till February 4 the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) setting aside...

NEW DELHI, January 3: The Delhi high court today stayed till February 4 the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) setting aside the second extension of T S R Subramaniam as cabinet secretary.

On an appeal by the union government, the vacation bench of Justice Vijender Jain and Justice S K Mahajan, held that the tribunal prima facie had no jurisdiction to stay an appointment made by the government on a petition by a third party or a public interest litigation. The judges felt that only aggrieved parties can approach the court in this matter.

The order came after the hearing held at the residence of Justice Jain lasting about ninety minutes. Eminent constitutional lawyer Soli Sorabjee assisted by Attorney General Ashok Desai appeared on behalf of the government.

Story continues below this ad

In its appeal, the government has also contended that the tribunal disbelieved an affidavit by Arvind Verma, secretary (personnel) in the Union government’s department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms for patently erroneous reasons. It has been contended that the guidelines relied upon were based on the research by the petitioner K S Chauhan and two others and the government was never given an opportunity to present the correct guidelines. The government has also said that the observations of the tribunal about powers of a caretaker government were totally uncalled-for and unwarranted, particularly when the tribunal itself went on to say that the government can re-employ a suitable person.

The tribunal’s observation that the affidavit by Verma was not duly sworn was false and misleading. Furthermore, the tribunal had relied on judgments that were not cited by the petitioners. The only judgment cited by the petitioner of a case in 1965 were not applicable to the present case, according to the appeal.

The observation of the tribunal that the extension was bad in law because there was no consultation with the state government was contrary to the amendment 16(2)(b)(ii) of the relevant rules.

The tribunal had also failed to appreciate the fact that the vacancy in the cabinet secretariat was caused by the ex parte order of the tribunal itself and not because Subramaniam stood superannuated, particularly as his services had been extended till March 31, 1998.

Story continues below this ad

It was unwarranted for the tribunal to say that the extension did not inspire confidence, the appeal said, adding that the tribunal’s observation that the last of the four Scheduled Caste officers available during the past one year was going to retire during the second extension of Subramaniam was unwarranted and extraneous and not based on the record.

The tribunal had yesterday set aside the second extension of Subramaniam — which would have come into effect on New Year’s day — with the observation that the government could not extend the services of a person who has already retired from service.

The two-member bench of Dr Jose P Verghese and B C Biswas said Subramaniam was still a government servant when the order had come for the first extension. However, he had ceased to be in service when the second extension order came on December 8.