Vidyadhar Manishankar Mhatre vs Union of India

What is challenged in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the common order dated 25 September, 2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal). By the impugned order dated 25 September, 2013 the Tribunal held that communication dated 13 February, 2013 received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 will not constitute a cause of action which could be challenged before the Tribunal. The communication in question reads as under:

"With reference to the above, it is informed that, Shri Karandikar was erroneously reverted to the post of Sr. Tech./Master crafts man Fr. Rs. 5000-8000 (RSRP) instead of Maistry post Fr. Rs. 1500-7000 (RSRP) which was not correct, due to which Shri. Karanikar''s name did not appear in the on Books list of Maistries and was not considered for the post of JE-II w.e.f. 1-11-2003 while implementing the restructuring orders. As per Headquarters directions Shri. Karandikar was promoted as JE-II w.e.f. 1-11-2003 by CWM/Parel.

Whereas in Matunga Workshop there were excess operation in Maistry Cadre hence the incumbents of those excess posts were granted an option to opt either substantive post of parents cadre or officiating post of maistry and on the basis of options received from you, you were continued to work on the post of Maistry."

It is clear from the above reply that the petitioners had sought service information inter alia as to why they were not given deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Jr. Engineer, Civil Engineering Grade II from the category of Maistry. The Tribunal has taken a view that such communication cannot be the subject matter of proceeding under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 as any communication received under Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be challenged under that Act.

In support of the impugned order learned Counsel for the respondent relies upon the provisions of Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which reads as under:

"23. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts. - No Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act."

It needs to be noted that Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 only bars the jurisdiction of Courts other than Administrative Tribunal in the matters which could be the subject matter of challenge in issuing the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It does not bar a challenge to the contents of a communication obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Act is no to be confined only to a challenge to a formal order in service matters. In fact the definition of service matters under Section 3(q) of the Central Administrative Act, 1985 is very wide and is not dependent upon formal orders. To illustrate, when a person is superseded by his juniors, the person concerned can challenge his supersession even in the absence of a formal order. Hence, there would not be any specific order of the employer for a Senior Employee to challenge his supersession at the time of the promotion of a Junior employee. The information supplied to the petitioners under Right to Information Act, 2005 explains why the applicants request for deemed date of promotion as Jr. Engineer Grade II with effect from 2003 has not been accepted. Therefore, it can be a subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal.

The employees would therefore, be well within their right to challenge such decision which is received as information under Right to Information Act, 2005. We therefore, allow these petitions and direct the Central Administrative Tribunal to entertain the petitioners applications in so far as they seek to challenge the decision of the concerned employer as conveyed in a reply dated 25 September, 2013 under Right to Information Act, 2005.

It is made clear that by these directions we do not propose to take away the right of the employer to object to the maintainability, of the original application on any other ground. All defences otherwise available will still be Available to the employer in the application by the employees before the Tribunal against the decision of the employer as received by the employees under Right to Information Act, 2005.

The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. It is clarified that the original applications filed by the petitioners are maintainable. It is further clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy between the parties and all contentions of the parties are kept open. All the petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.