1. This O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed with the following reliefs: (i) This Hon, Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 10.4.1999 passed by the opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure No. 1.
(ii) This Hon. Tribunal may be further pleased to direct the respondents not to give affect to the order dated 10.4.1999 passed by the opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure-1 and prevent them to post any person as Manager (Operations).
(iii) This Hon. Tribunal may be pleased to grant such other relief which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) This Hon. Tribunal be pleased to allow this application with costs and special compensation.
2. The impugned order Annexure-1 dated 10.4.99 was passed by opposite party No. 2, Executive Director (Personnel) Food Corporation of India (in Short F.C.I.) regarding posting of Manager (Operation) in Regional Office, Lucknow purely on temporary basis for a period of one year with immediate effect. The applicant is an I. A.S. Officer of Sikkim Cadre posted on deputation as Senior Regional Manager (In short S.R.M.) F.C.I. Lucknow for a period of five years. By order dated 29.10.98 of F.C.I. the applicant was transferred from Lucknow to Delhi, in the Head Office of F.C.I. The said order was challenged in O.A. 447/98. The said O.A. was admitted by order dated 12.11.98 and it was provided that the respondents shall not post an officer as S.R.M., F.C.I. Lucknow till next date and the respondents were given time to file objection (copy Annexure). On 23.11.98, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the operation of the order dated 29.10.98 transferring the applicant from F.C.I. Lucknow to F.C.I. Headquarters was stayed till further orders and the respondents were directed to allow the applicant to take over the duties as S.R.M. F.C.I. Lucknow (copy Annexure 3 to the O.A.). Annexure 4 dated 10.12.98 however, shows that subsequently, the Appointment Committee of Cabinet accorded ex post facto approval to the transfer of the applicant from the post of S.R.M., F.C.I. Lucknow to H.Q. Office F.C.I. New Delhi w.e.f. the date on which the applicant was actually transferred under the orders of F.C.I. By second para of this office Memo (Annexure-4) the applicant has been repatriated to his parent cadre. This Office Memorandum has in effect curtailed the five years tenure posting of the applicant. These facts, are however the subject matter of O.A. No. 447/98.
3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has however, submitted that the efforts were made to invent some way to whittle down the effect of the order dated 12.11.98 and 23.11.98 passed by this Tribunal and therefore, in January, 99, C.B.I. was also approached on the basis of frivolous complaints made against the applicant. It has been also stated in the O.A. that political manouverings were done to somehow oust the applicant from his present post. The submission of the learned Counsel is that in the Rejoinder Affidavit filed in the O.A. Np. 447/ 98, an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the deponent of the counter affidavit (filed by the respondents of the earlier O.A.) was also preferred and that perhaps infuriated the respondents and thus, baseless reckless and bald allegations have been made by the respondents. The posting of respondent No. 3 as manager (operation), it has been submitted, is to take away all the powers as S.R.M. of the applicant, and to vest the same with Manager (Operations). This, it has been submitted, is to negate the Interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 447/98.
4. On behalf respondent No. 2, an objection on the maintainability of this O.A. has been filed on the ground that F.C.I. is not notified under Section 14(2) of the A.T. Act, 1985 (in short Act of 1985) and as such the present application and the reliefs sought from F.C.I. are not maintainable before this Tribunal.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to Section 14 of the Act of 1985 and has submitted that for all service matters concerning a member of an All India Service, to which the applicant belongs, only the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal) has power to exercise jurisdiction. In support of his submission the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Srikrishna v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 18.10.89, 1990 (5) SLR 251. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Madan Gopal Singh v. Union of India and Anr., 1969 SLR 576.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondents has on the other hand, placed reliance on the decision of Dr. Shri Krishna (supra) and on another decision in the case of M. Manoharan v. Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and Ors., 1992(1) SLR 197.
8. Admittedly, the F.C.I. is not notified under Section 14(2) of the A.T. Act. The order impugned in the present case was passed by respondent No. 2 posting the respondent No. 3 as Manager (operations) at Regional Office, Lucknow. The duties of Manager (operation) have also been narrated in the impugned order.
9. We are required to examine whether the order dated 10.4.99, which in effect, takes away some of the duties and powers of the applicant as S.R.M. is a 'service matter' as defined under Section 3(q) of the Act of 1985.
10. Section 14 of the Act of 1985 provides that the Tribunal shall exercise all the jurisdiction, power and authority in relation to all 'service matters' concerning a member of an All India Service. Such jurisdiction extends pertaining to the service of an 'All India Service member in connection' with the affairs of the Union or of any State or any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of Govt. of India or any Corporation or Society, owned or controlled by the Government.
11. A reading of Section 14 therefore, shows that for 'service matters' concerning an All India Service Officers' only the Tribunal has the jurisdiction. 'Service matter' has been defined under Section 3 (q) of the Act of 1985 which is as below: "(q) "Service matters" in relation to a person, means all matters relating to conditions of his service 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 as the case may be, of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government, as respects : (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; 12. The expression 'in connection with the affairs of the Union.......or any local or other authority in the territory of India.......of any Corporation.......owned or controlled by the Government of India' only adverts the employer. Thus, 'service matter' in relation to a person means all matter relating to the conditions of service. In the present case, we are not concerned with Clauses I to IV of Section 3(q). It is to be seen whether the facts of the present case come within the meaning of expression 'any other matter whatsoever' within Clause (V) of Section 3(q). The expression 'any other matter whatsoever' is quite wide but it is not possible to infer that it covers all such matters also, which are not conditions of service. The expression 'any other matter whatsoever' takes colour from the expression 'matters relating to the conditions of service' used in the earlier part of the definition clause. Thus, service matters which affect conditions of service of an All India Service Officer can be assailed before this Tribunal.
13. The applicant was posted on deputation as Senior Regional Manager, F.C.I. Lucknow. On his posting the applicant was to exercise all statutory powers as may be attached to the post of Senior Regional Manager. If any such power is taken away by the F.C.I., it may come within the definition of the expression service matter. In the present case, it is not shown that by the impugned order, any authority/statutory power of the Senior Regional Manager, F.C.I., Lucknow has been taken away by the respondent No. 2. The posting of respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2 cannot be assailed before this Tribunal, unless it affects the service conditions of the applicant.
The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the creation of the post of Manager (operations) and the posting of the respondent No. 3 on the said post is not in accordance with the prescribed rules.
Even if it be so, the Tribunal cannot examine the validity of the impugned order because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to examine the same.
14. A similar matter cropped up before Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of N. Manoharan (supra) wherein the relief was claimed against Konkan Railway Corporation which was not notified under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1985. It was held by the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A.15. In the case of Dr. Shri Krishna (supra) the applicant who was a Central Government employee, was selected as Reader on deputation to Kendriya Hindi Shikshan Mandal Agra (in short Mandal), a Society.
Subsequently, the applicant wanted to be absorbed in the Mandal.
However, the Govt. of India decided that the petitioner therein cannot be permitted to be absorbed in the Mandal and he was directed to return to his parent department. The applicant moved Allahabad High Court, Allahabad by filing a writ petition. It was held that a Central Government employee 'on deputation with a Society, fully controlled by the Central Government, so long as the employee is on deputation, remains the employee of the Central Government and jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under the Act of 1985. The Submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant who is a member of an All India Service, and is on deputation to the F.C.I., continues to be a member of All India Services, and therefore, for his grievance, he can come to the Tribunal. Such an interpretation cannot be inferred from the decision in the case of Dr. Shri Krishna (supra). In the case of Dr. Shri Krishna (supra) the applicant therein was a Central Government employee on deputation. The order of the Central Government was under challenge before the Hon. High Court whereby the absorption of the applicant with Mandal was not permitted. Thus, the cause of the grievance was the order of the Central Government in respect of a Central Government employee and consequently, the Hon. High Court, after examining the matter, held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction and not the High Court.
16. In the case before this Tribunal, the impugned order has been passed by F.C.I. by which an officer of the F.C.I. has been posted as Manager (operation). This order, cannot be assailed before this Tribunal. As has been found above, by the impugned order, it has not been established that any statutory power of the Senior Regional Manager, Lucknow has been taken away and therefore, the impugned order does not affect the service condition of the applicant. As is apparent from the first para of the impugned order, for maintaining buffer stock and to enable the region to manage the task of procurement operation, it was considered expedient to post a Manager in the office. Such matters are within the administrative powers of the corporation which has to manage the procurement operations. In view of the above, we cannot examine the authority of respondent No. 2 in issuing the order Annexure 1. Therefore, without expressing any opinion thereon we are of the view that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this O.A.17. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the applicant while placing reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Madan Gopal Singh (supra), has submitted that mere loss of emoluments is not the criteria if a Government servant has a right to a particular rank then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, as he will lose the emoluments and the privileges of that rank. In the case in hand, there is no question of reduction in rank or loss of emoluments or privileges and therefore, the decision of Madan Gopal is of no help to the applicant.
18. For the above reasons, we are of the view that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this application. Consequently, the O.A. is dismissed as not maintainable. Costs easy.