P K RAJENDRANATHAN ACHARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Balaji for Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice.

(2.) The petitioner made a representation while he was in Coimbatore for upgrading his post. He was at the relevant time working in the post of Enforcement Inspector (Technical). In that representation which is dated 3.11.1997, he sought an ultimate prayer of fixing his basic pay at par with the basic pay of Technical Investigators of the same batch as was permitted by the Government of India vide notification dated 30.9.1997. This representation was not accepted by the Government of India. There were such common representations made by number of other persons also. By order dated 12.3.2001, the Government of India issued a Memorandum which was general in nature and not directed to the individuals separately. In that Memorandum, the Government of India held that the proposals regarding removal of anomalies and placing the respective posts in the upgraded revised pay scale were not acceded to by the Finance Ministry. Similar such orders were passed by the Government of India on some different dates also.

(3.) The petitioner herein filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). At the time when the so-called representation was decided by issuance of Memorandum mentioned above and further at the time of filing the Original Application, admittedly, the petitioner was transferred as Enforcement Inspector (T) at Power Loom Service Center, Industrial Estate, Belgaum in Karnataka State. Seeing that he is posted outside the State of Tamil Nadu, an objection was raised by the Registry regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench at Madras. The Tribunal has accepted the objection and has rejected the matter on the basis of the jurisdiction. The Tribunal took the view that the impugned orders were not passed on the representation, but in view of the policy decision taken by the Ministry of Defence and therefore, orders which were challenged were the orders de horse the representation. The Tribunal took the view that the matter fell outside the jurisdiction since, the petitioner himself was not posted in Tamil Nadu. It is this order which is challenged herein.