Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Nutan Wodeyar, a Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a common order dated 28.4.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore Bench. The Tribunal had initially, by a unanimous order of the Judicial Member and Administrative Member, allowed her application (O.A.No.170/01573/2015) granting certain reliefs. However, the Administrative Member subsequently issued a dissenting opinion, and the Judicial Member complied with it, resulting in the dismissal of the application. The petitioner sought to quash the dissenting order and the subsequent compliance order, and to restore the unanimous order granting relief. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the dissenting opinion of the Administrative Member could not be treated as the majority opinion. The unanimous order of both members allowing the application was the valid order. The court quashed the dissenting order and the compliance order, and restored the original unanimous order dated 28.4.2016 granting relief to the petitioner. The court directed the respondents to implement the unanimous order within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Tribunal Procedure - Dissenting Opinion - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 9 - The issue was whether the dissenting opinion of the Judicial Member could be implemented to dismiss the application when the Administrative Member had allowed it. The High Court held that the dissenting opinion could not be treated as the majority opinion and the order allowing the application by the Judicial Member and Administrative Member was the valid order. (Paras 1-5)
B) Service Law - Pension - Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The petitioner sought quashing of the dissenting order and declaration of entitlement to reliefs. The court held that the unanimous order of both members granting relief was the correct order and the dissenting opinion could not override it. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dissenting opinion of the Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal could be acted upon to dismiss the application when the Administrative Member had allowed it, and whether the subsequent compliance with the dissenting opinion was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the dissenting order/opinion of the Administrative Member and the subsequent compliance order, and restored the unanimous order dated 28.4.2016 granting relief to the petitioner. The respondents were directed to implement the unanimous order within four weeks.
Law Points
- Dissenting opinion
- Majority opinion
- Tribunal procedure
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1972
- Rule 9
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (11) 39
Writ Petition Nos.33703-33704/2016(S-CAT)
Justice Jayant Patel, Justice Aravind Kumar
Sri B.M.Shyam Prasad, Senior Counsel for Sri P.B.Ajit, Adv. for petitioner; Smt.Gowhar Unnisa, CGC for R1 & R2; Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi, Adv., for R3 & R4
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; Union of India, Department of Personnel and Training; The Chairperson, Central Board of Direct Taxes; The Member (P&V), Central Board of Direct Taxes
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the dissenting order/opinion of the Administrative Member and the subsequent compliance order, and declaration that the petitioner is entitled to reliefs as unanimously granted by the Judicial and Administrative Members.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the dissenting opinion of the Administrative Member which led to dismissal of her application, contrary to the initial unanimous order allowing it.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal had initially allowed the application by unanimous order of both members, but later the Administrative Member issued a dissenting opinion and the Judicial Member complied, resulting in dismissal.
Issues
Whether the dissenting opinion of the Administrative Member could be acted upon to dismiss the application when the Judicial Member had initially allowed it?
Whether the subsequent compliance with the dissenting opinion by the Judicial Member was valid?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the dissenting opinion could not override the unanimous order and the subsequent compliance was illegal.
Respondents argued that the dissenting opinion was valid and the order dismissing the application was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The dissenting opinion of a member of a Tribunal cannot be treated as the majority opinion. The unanimous order of both members allowing the application is the valid order, and the subsequent compliance with the dissenting opinion is illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petitions are directed against common order dated 28.4.2016 passed by the Tribunal whereby in the first part of the order the application is allowed, whereas in the latter part of the order, the application is dismissed.
But the prayer of the petitioner is to maintain first part of the order which is favourable to her and for the second part of the order, the petitioner contends that such an order could not be passed by the Tribunal.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (O.A.No.170/01573/2015) which was initially allowed by unanimous order of the Judicial and Administrative Members on 28.4.2016. Subsequently, the Administrative Member issued a dissenting opinion, and the Judicial Member complied, resulting in dismissal. The petitioner then filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the dissenting order and compliance order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rule 9
