AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the alleged non-payment of honorarium to him by the Respondents in respect of the Departmental Enquiries conducted by him.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The present applicant was an Indian Forest Service officer, initially appointed on 1.03.1976. The applicant retired from Government service on 31.01.2014, after attaining the age of superannuation, in the rank of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana. On 6.01.2016, the respondent State Government of Haryana empanelled him as one of the Inquiry Officers for conducting regular departmental enquiries. Respondent no.2 appointed him as inquiry Officer to conduct regular departmental inquiry against eight revenue officers in respect of eight charge sheets. The applicant completed the inquiries and submitted his Inquiry Reports. Subsequently, the respondents assigned him departmental enquiries in respect of four revenue officers (on 25.05.2022), five Assistant Professors (30.11.2022), one Executive Engineer (on 22.02.2023, one HCS Officer (on 20.03.2023), and two Professors (on 22.03.2023). The applicant submitted the enquiries in some of the cases and in other cases, the departmental enquiries are still continuing.
On 13.05.2023, the applicant requested the respective Respondents to release at least 50% of the entitled honorarium to him as per guidelines dated 15.03.2022 of the State of Haryana. He made a claim of Rs 2,87,500/, against which the respondents have released only Rs.25,500/- only. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:
“(1)To direct the respondents to release the entitled honorarium as per computation sheet given in Annexure-A/11within 15 days
(2)To direct the respondents to pay interest @ 10% for the delay in making the payment till it is made to the applicant.
(3)To allow this application with cost.
(4)To pass any other order(s)/ direction(s) as deemed proper in the circumstances of the case.”
After the OA was listed for the first date of hearing on 22.08.2023, the applicant appeared in person and pleaded for issuance of notice to the respondents. When he was queried whether the subject matter can be adjudicated by this Tribunal, the applicant pleaded that as he was an IFS Officer and he has been appointed as an Inquiry Officer by the respondents, the subject matter squarely falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
At this admission stage, without issuing notice to the respondents, the issue regarding jurisdiction of this tribunal to go into the matter of payment of honorarium to an Inquiry Officer for conducting departmental Enquiries was deliberated. The subject matter in the present OA is payment of honorarium (professional charges) to a private individual who rendered some professional service to the respondents. The present applicant had retired from Government service with effect from 31.01.2014 and his status as a government servant ceased to exist on that date. His subsequent engagement as an Inquiry Officer is akin to that of a vendor supplying/rendering professional service. The acceptance of the offer to conduct the departmental enquiries by him, in his capacity as a retired professional civil servant, is like acceptance of a contract from the government. The preamble of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 makes the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal quite clear. It states:
“An Act to 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 1[any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government in pursuance of article 323A of the Constitution] and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
The present issue as raised by the Applicant does not fall under the domain of disputes and complaints in respect of recruitment and service conditions of a person appointed to public service and posts. The relationship of the applicant as “a person appointed to public service and posts” ended when he retired from service. His subsequent engagement as Inquiry Officer for conducting departmental proceedings is not in pursuance to a post retirement appointment, which can qualify as “appointment to Public Service”.
To deliver public services, the government, from time to time, engage professionals to render professional services including third party inquiries, inspections, quality control measures and advisories. The assignment of departmental enquiries to empanelled retired professional civil servants can at best be categorized a contract to render professional service. Hence, the relationship between the applicant and the respondents cannot be termed as “appointment to Public Service”.
In view of the above, the present application is barred by jurisdiction. The applicant is at liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances or enforcing his rights. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed at the admission stage for want of jurisdiction, without going into the merits of the claims tendered by the applicant.
No order as to costs.