- (1.) WHETHER a Tribunal established under Section 4 of the administrative Tribunals Act (for short 'the Act') can review its decision on the basis of subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger bench or any superior Court or on the basis of subsequent event/development is the question which arises for determination of this appeal filed by the State of West Bengal and others against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the said high Court declined to interfere with order dated 25. 9. 2001 passed by the West bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in R. A. No. 26 of 1998.
(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the aforementioned question are as under :- (i) Respondents Kamal Sengupta and Narayan Chandra Ghosh appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the West Bengal Public Service Commission in 1973 for recruitment to West Bengal Civil Services (Executive) and other Allied services. They were declared successful and were allotted to West Bengal Food and supplies Service (hereinafter described as 'the service' ). Initially, they were posted as Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies. In due course, they were promoted as Assistant Director, deputy Director and finally as Director and their pay was fixed in the scales prescribed for those posts. They were also given the benefit of revised scales under the West Bengal (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'ropa 1981') and the West Bengal (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'ropa 1990' ). (ii) After 20 years of joining the service, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 1547 of 1995 for quashing letter dated 6. 1. 1995 vide which the Finance Department of the State Government rejected their claim for grant of Pay Scale Nos. 19 and 21 in terms of the Career Advancement Scheme (for short 'the Scheme') framed by the government of West Bengal, which was circulated vide Memorandum dated 21. 6. 1990 and for issue of a mandamus to the State Government to take action in accordance with the recommendations made by Secretary, food and Supplies Department vide his DO No. G-5250/fc dated 5. 10. 1992, G-5302/fc dated 16. 10. 1992 and Con-223/fs dated 27. 4. 1994. They further prayed for issue of direction to the non-petitioners (the appellants herein) to declare the posts in Scale Nos. 19 and 21 under Rule 2 (b) of ROPA 1990 to be in the ranks of Joint Secretary and Special secretary respectively and sanction those posts for members of the service in the same ratio as was done in the case of West Bengal Civil Services Officers. (iii) In the affidavit filed by him in support of the writ petition, Narayan Chandra ghosh (respondent no. 2 herein) referred to the factum of sanction of Pay Scale Nos. 17, 18 and 19 to members of the service under ROPA 1981, recommendations made by the Third Pay Commission, the Scheme and averred that they have been subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of grant of Scale Nos. 19 and 21. For the sake of reference, paragraphs 5, 9, 13, 17 and 18 of the affidavit of respondent No. 2 are reproduced below :- "5. That the petitioners having entered in to W. B. F. and S. S. , in the year of 1974/75 after successfully passing the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and certain allied service examination held in 1973 were first posted in the basic grade posts of sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies and thereafter in recognition to meritorious service since rendered by them were posted in different senior posts and posts with higher responsibilities like Assistant Director, Deputy Director and lastly were posted as Director in the year of 1991 and 1992 respectively. 9. That the petitioners were awarded Scale No. 19, (Rs. 1600/- to 2250/-)according to their respective seniority cum merit w. e. f. 01. 03. 1982 and 01. 11. 1982 respectively and on 1st January, 1986 when the pay of the petitioners were to be fixed notionally in terms of the provision of West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1990, the petitioners were drawing pay Rs. 1840/- and Rs. 1780/- respectively. 13. That the petitioners state that under ROPA, 1990 the members of W. B. F. and s. S. , have been awarded three scales of pay namely scale Nos. 16 (Rs. 2200/- to rs. 4000/-) 17 (Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4750/-) and 18 (Rs. 3700/- to Rs. 5700/-) inasmuch as these scales correspond to Scale No. 17 (Rs. 660/-to Rs. 1600/-), Scale No. 18 Rs. 1100/-to Rs. 1900/-) and No. 19 (Rs. 1600/- to Rs. 2250/-) under ROPA, 1981. 17. That the distribution of posts in revised Scale Nos. 19 and 21 for the services shown in Annexure to the Memo No. 6075-F dated 21. 06. 1990 (Annexure "c" to this Writ Petition) is given hereunder : JUDGEMENT_4294_AIR(SCW)_2008Html1.htm 18. It is evident from the foregoing paragraph that all the state Services constituted under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India and having same method of recruitment have been given the benefit of Scale No. 19 under Career Advancement Scheme save and except the West Bengal Food and Supplies Service which is a duly constituted State Service and belongs to group "a" State Services along with other, under west Bengal Civil Services (Exe) and Certain allied Services. " (iv) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants herein, it was averred that the Scheme was framed to improve the standard of administration and career prospects of the employees, who did not have adequate promotional opportunities. It was further averred that benefit of the Scheme was not extended to the writ petitioners because they had been promoted to the higher posts and were paid salary in the scales prescribed for those posts. As regards the recommendations made by Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, it was averred that the same are not binding on the State Government. Paragraphs 7, 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit which are reflective of the stand taken by the appellants read as under :-"7. With reference to the said paragraph, it is pertinent to point out that so far as the service of writ petitioners is concerned, they have reached their highest post in the service as admitted by them. They have also reached the highest scale of pay as are admissible to the highest post. They are no longer eligible for any scale under the career Advancement Scheme as the said Scheme is not meant for them. 12. With reference to the allegations contained in paragraphs 18 to 20 of the writ petition, it is denied that all the State services have been given the benefit of scale no. 19 save and except West Bengal Food and Supplies service or that cadre strength has anything to do with the Career Advancement Scheme or that there is any arbitrary act or act which is violative of the principles of equity and the principles of natural justice as wrongfully alleged or at all. In this context, I repeat and reiterate that the Career Advancement Scheme for the Government employees is guided by the Finance Department Memo dated June 21, 1990. In order to allow the benefit of higher pay scale to the incumbents of the respective services subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, the said Scheme was introduced. The members of the State Service including the West Bengal Food and Supplies service are entitled to promotion in the higher scale of pay being scale Nos. 16, 17 and 18. In addition to the above benefit, as per promotion policy of the Government, the members of some of the state services have been allowed the benefit of scale Nos. 19 and 21 as per Career advancement Scheme referred to above. The said benefit of higher scale Nos. 19 to 21 as per Career Advancement Scheme referred to above has not been allowed to the state Services in general since the prospect of promotion to the higher scale of pay depends on a variety of consideration namely ratio of higher post to base level post in the feeder grade, hierarchical structure of the department, the level of work and nature of responsibilities, the proportion of direct recruitment, the pace of growth of normal activities of a department, the avenue of normal promotion etc. On consideration of the above factors, there is hardly any justification to bring all State Services on the same footing in respect of extension of the benefit of higher scale of pay as per promotion policy of Career Advancement Scheme. In fact, the Third Pay Commission as an expert body held that it is not possible to grant equal opportunities of promotion to the higher post to the employees in general on account of the said various factors. If necessary, I shall crave leave to refer to a copy of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission at the hearing. 13. With reference to the allegations contained in paragraphs 21 to 25 (b) of the writ petition, it is denied that there is any discrimination as alleged or at all. The d. O. letter dated October 5, 1992 is a mere recommendation by the departmental head as is usual practice for all the departmental heads to forward representations which were received from their employees. As already stated above, the consideration which are relevant for the purpose of extending the Career Advancement Scheme are totally different. The incumbents who are holding the post of Commercial Tax services are not obviously at par with the post held by the petitioners. In this context, it is also pertinent to mention that the matter of extending the Career Advancement Scheme is a matter of policy decision. As already stated and admitted by the writ petitioners that they have reached the scale No. 19, under ROPA Rules, 1990 and as such their getting further career advancement does not and/or cannot arise. " (v) On establishment of the Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to it and was registered as Transferred Application No. 826 of 1996. By an order dated 25. 2. 1997, the Tribunal dismissed the same. It held that the pay structure has been worked out by the Third Pay Commission after proper job evaluation of different services and posts; that there cannot be any equality among the members of different services; that the State Government was free to frame appropriate scheme for grant of higher pay scales to the members of some services who did not have adequate promotional opportunities and that in the absence of any evidence of parity, a mandatory direction cannot be issued for grant of higher pay scales to the applicants. (vi) The respondents challenged the order of the Tribunal in WPST No. 59 of 1997, which was dismissed by the High Court with an observation that the only remedy available to the petitioners was to file petition for special leave to appeal. Thereafter, the respondents filed SLP No. . . . of 1998 (CC 5925/1998), which was dismissed on 4. 9. 1998 as withdrawn in terms of the prayer made by their counsel. (vii) In the meanwhile, Joydeb Biswas and others filed O. A. No. 148 of 1997 for grant of Scale Nos. 17, 18 and 19 to members of the service under ROPA 1981 in the ratio of 6:3:1. They relied on Finance Department Memorandum No. 9425-F dated 9. 8. 1983, whereby posts in different services were distributed in the ratio of 6:3:1 and orders passed by the High Court of Calcutta for grant of Scale Nos. 17, 18 and 19 to the members of State Audit and Accounts Service and west Bengal Judicial Service in the ratio of 6:3:1 and pleaded that they are entitled to similar treatment. (viii) The appellants contested the application of Joydeb Biswas and others by asserting that their claim of parity with members of other State Services was untenable. In support of this plea, the appellants relied on the order passed in Transferred application No. 826 of 1996 (Kamal Sengupta and another vs. State of West Bengal and others ). (ix) The Tribunal distinguished the order passed in Kamal Sengupta's case by observing that the question of distribution of Scale Nos. 17, 18 and 19 was not considered in that case and directed the State Government to implement the recommendations made by Secretary, food and Civil Supplies Department. The relevant portions of order dated 25. 3. 1998 passed by the tribunal in O. A. No. 148 of 1997 are extracted below :-"that takes us to the question whether the distribution of scales of pay in the ratio of 6:3:1 should be extended to the applicants. It may be true that the rationale which attracted the decisions in the case of Audit and Accounts service and the West Bengal Judicial Service may not be fully applicable to the case of the applicants employed in food and Civil Supply Department, but the broad fact remains that the authority competent to decide this question is the Departmental Secretary being the respondent No. 2, who by his elaborate and reasoned order in Annexure 'g', has fully upheld the case of the applicants. Being the administrative head of the concerned Department he is the most competent person to decide about the cadre strength, the promotional prospect and the distribution of the promotional scales of pay, and going through his order we do not find any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in his judgment. In view of the conclusion reached on the second point above, we may dispose of the third contention raised by the State respondents that due to the decision in Kamal sengupta's case the point is concluded against the applicants. We do not agree for the simple reason that in Kamal Sengupta's case the question was whether scale nos. 20 and 21 of ROPA Rules of 1990 should be extended to the officers of the Food department and in that judgment there was no point for consideration as to how the scale Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are to be distributed amongst the officers of the Food and supply Department. So the third point taken by the State respondents also fails. That takes us to the irresistible conclusion that there is no valid ground to refuse the applicants the benefit of scale Nos. 17, 18 and 19 in the ratio of 6:3:1. At the risk of repetition we may say that the decision of the respondent No. 2 as indicated in annexure 'g' is conclusive. The question whether the Secretary, finance Department will issue necessary Government orders or whether such order will involve additional financial burden upon the State exchequer is of no consequence to us. When the administrative head of a particular department has taken a well reasoned decision on the representation of the applicant and pursuant to our direction in the earlier writ petition, the respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed not to implement the same on any plea, whatsoever" [emphasis added] (x) After dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the respondents filed R. A. No. 26 of 1998 for review of order dated 25. 2. 1997 by asserting that they were stagnating in the same scale of pay since 1982 and the non-applicants arbitrarily denied them benefit of the higher scales which were given to the members of other services. The respondents pleaded that in view of the recommendations made by Secretary of food and Supplies Department, which are binding on the State Government, they are entitled to Scale Nos. 19 and 21. In support of this plea, the respondents relied on order dated 25. 3. 1998 passed in O. A. No. 148 of 1997 Joydeb Biswas and others vs. State of West Bengal and others. The precise grounds on which review was sought by the respondents are reproduced below :-"i. For that this learned Tribunal was pleased to reach two opposite conclusions on the same point of law as in Annexures "c" and "d" and thereby dismissing the case of your applicants, while allowing that of the other applicants. II. For that the order as in Annexure "c" therefore suffers from this grave inconsistency and irregularity on the face of the record when compared to the Order as in Annexure "d". III. For that this learned Tribunal was pleased to hold the recommendation mainly the Administrative Head of Department of your applicants as a mere recommendation and allowed the objection of the Finance Secretary to prevail. In the matter of granting the benefit, which this learned Tribunal was pleased to grant to the said other petitioners merely because their Administrative Head of Department had made such recommendation, and despite the objections of the Finance Secretary in that case. IV. For that the Orders as in Annexures "c" and "d" make for judicial anarchy and scuttle the belief in the judicial system. V. For that even otherwise, the said orders as in Annexure "c" and "d" cannot both stand, without violating the principles of natural justice not only enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution of India, but also in Section 22 of the Act of 1985, being the parent Statute of this learned Tribunal read with article 323-A of the Constitution of India, and it is fit and proper that this learned Tribunal be pleased to review its order as in Annexure "c" in the light of the later judgment as in Annexure "d", on the principle that the later judgment shall prevail. " (xi) By an Order dated 30. 11. 1999, the Tribunal dismissed the review application on the premise that power of review cannot be exercised after dismissal of the SLP. (xii) The legality and correctness of the aforementioned order was challenged by the respondents in WPST No. 37 of 2000, which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court on the premise that dismissal of the SLP as withdrawn did not affect the Tribunal's power of review. Accordingly, a direction was given to the Tribunal to decide the review application afresh. (xiii) In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, the Tribunal heard the review application on merits and allowed the same vide order dated 25. 9. 2001. The Tribunal made detailed reference to the pleadings of the parties and arguments of their advocates, recommendations made by Secretary, food and Supplies Department and rejection thereof by the finance Department as also Memo dated 13. 3. 2001 issued by the State Government for creation of additional posts in Scale No. 19 for various State Services including the service of which the respondents were members and held :- "be that as it may, it now appears from the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the applicants that the respondent authorities concerned have come forward and issued necessary Govt. orders extending the benefit of Scale No. 19 to the Officers of Food and Supplies Department w. e. f. 1. 1. 2001 vide Memo No. 3015-F dated 13. 3. 2001 being annexure 'c' to Supplementary Affidavit. It was argued before us by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the applicants that because of the extension of such benefit of scale No. 19 to the Officers of Food and Supplies Department, the instant case stood disposed of in their favour but in part. In our view, the extension of the benefit of scale No. 19 pointed out only to a glaring fact that the Officers of Food and Supplies department were also entitled to such a Scale, but they were deprived of the same for a long time for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. It was indeed a clear case of hostile discrimination. " The Tribunal then referred to order dated 25. 3. 1998 passed in O. A. No. 148 of 1997, Joydeb Biswas's case, and held :- "switching now over to the other aspect of the case, we find from Annexure 'd' to the application for review that the Ld. Division Bench of this Tribunal delivered a judgment in OA 148/97 on 25. 3. 98 in which 13 applicants of the said case being employees of the Food and Supplies Department claimed the benefits of scale Nos. 17, 18 and 19. It appears that in that case this bench held inter alia that the recommendation made by the Food Secretary, being Head of the Administrative Department was binding on the Secretary, Finance Department and hence the State respondent authorities concerned could not refuse to implement the said recommendation of the administrative Head on "any plea what-so-ever". In that view of the matter, it appears that by the said judgment and order dated 25. 3. 98, the Division Bench of this tribunal directed the concerned respondent authorities to issue necessary Govt. order extending the benefit of scale Nos. 17, 18 and 19 to the applicants of the said case. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants of this case was that this judgment and order was not within their knowledge and hence documents in that regard could not be produced by the applicants before the Ld. Tribunal at the appropriate time and that upon discovery of new and important material, viz. , judgment and order, dated 23. 5. 98, which was not within their knowledge, they were not praying for review, which was admissible under the provisions of Section 21 of the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and also under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In our view this was certainly a "sufficient cause" for belated filing of the application for review. " Though the Tribunal did not deal with the issue relating to entitlement of the respondents to Scale No. 21, but directed the appellants herein to extend the benefit of the said scale to them. This is evident from the operative part of the Tribunal's order, which is extracted below: "in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are, therefore, inclined to allow the instant prayer for review put in by the applicants. We, thus allow the Review application and direct the respondent authorities concerned, particularly respondent no. 2 (i. e. Secretary, Finance Deptt.) to take necessary steps for extending the benefits of Scale No. 19, if not already extended to the applicants and also to extend the benefits of Scale No. 21 to the applicants in accordance with the Rules and law and provisions contained in Notification No. 6075-F dated 21. 6. 90 meant for W. B. C. S. (Executive) and other Allied Services officers within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. " The appellants challenged the aforementioned order in WPST No. 1 of 2001 by asserting that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to review order dated 25. 2. 1997 on the basis of subsequent order passed in joydeb Biswas's case. Another plea taken by the appellants was that the recommendations made by the Secretary of the Administrative Department are not binding on the State Government. The Division bench of the High Court held that the Tribunal could not have entertained and allowed the review application on the basis of a decision which was not in existence at the time of initial order, but declined to interfere with order dated 25. 9. 2001 by observing that denial of higher pay scale to members of the service had resulted in violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners extensively referred to the pleadings of writ Petition No. 1547 of 1995, which was later on converted into Transferred Application no. 826 of 1996, R. A. No. 26 of 1998, orders dated 25. 2. 1997, 25. 3. 1998 and 25. 9. 2001 passed by the Tribunal, orders dated 8. 1. 2001 and 21. 8. 2003 passed by the high Court in WPST No. 37 of 2000 and WPST nos. 1 and 2 of 2001 respectively and order dated 4. 9. 1998 passed by this Court in slp No. . . . of 1998 (CC 5925/1998) and argued that the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the review application on the ground that in Joydeb biswas's case a direction had been given to the State Government to act on the recommendations made by the Secretary of the Administrative Department for grant of relief to the applicants of that case and while dismissing the SLP, the Supreme court had observed that the petitioners can seek review of the order passed in the transferred application. Shri Gupta submitted that power vested in the Tribunal under Section 22 (3) (f) of the act to review its order/decision is similar to that of the civil Court and the same can be exercised only on the grounds specified in Order 47 rule 1 of CPC. Learned counsel emphasized that any subsequent decision on an identical or similar point by a coordinate or larger bench or even change of law cannot be made basis for recording a finding that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Shri Gupta argued that the tribunal could not have reviewed order dated 25. 2. 1997 by relying on order dated 25. 3. 1998 passed in Joydeb Biswas's case, because that order did not contain any determination on the issue of sanction of posts in Scale Nos. l9 and 21 under the scheme circulated vide Memorandum dated 21. 6. 1990. He further argued that even if the order passed by the Tribunal in Joydeb Biswas's case could be relied upon for the purpose of holding that recommendations made by the Secretary of the Administrative Department are binding on the Government, a mandatory direction could not have been given for extension of the benefit of scale Nos. 19 and 21 to the respondents ignoring the fact that those scales had not been given to members of other services as well. Learned counsel invited our attention to the annexure appended to the Scheme to show that the State Government had not sanctioned posts in Scale no. 19 for three services including the one of which the respondents were members and posts in Scale No. 21 were sanctioned only for 2 out of 17 State Services and argued that the plea of discrimination raised by the respondents was rightly rejected by the Tribunal in the first instance because the respondents had already reached the highest positions in the service and were being paid salary in the revised scales introduced under ROPA 1990. Learned counsel pointed out that while dismissing the SLP as withdrawn, this Court did not give liberty to the respondents herein to apply for review of order dated 25. 2. 1997 and argued that letter written by the counsel could not be made basis for presuming that such liberty had, in fact, been given. Another argument of the learned senior counsel is that the plea of stagnation was not raised by the respondents till the filing of review application and, therefore, the same could not have been considered by the tribunal in conjunction with the decision contained in memorandum dated 13. 3. 2001 for recording a finding that the state had discriminated the respondents in the matter of grant of higher pay scales. Shri Gupta lastly argued that the High Court committed serious error by refusing to set aside the order impugned in the writ petition ignoring the stark fact that posts in scale No. 19 had not been sanctioned for 3 out of 17 State Services and posts in scale No. 21 were sanctioned only for two services viz. , West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and West Bengal Commercial Service and the Tribunal had not struck down the Scheme as a whole on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. In support of his arguments/submissions, Shri bhaskar Gupta relied on judgments of this Court - State of U. P. (A1r 1989 SC 19)vs. J. P. Chaurasia [1989 (1) SCC 121], State of Maharashtra and (1996 AIR SCW 1493) another vs. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle [1996 (3) SCC 463], k. Ajit Babu and others vs. Union of India and others [1997 (6) SCC 473], (1997 AIR SCW 3340) Gopabandhu Biswal vs. Krishna Chandra Mohanty and others (1998air SCW1678) [1998 (4) SCC 447], Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and oth- (1999 AIR SCW4212) ers [1999 (9) SCC 596], Union of India vs. Pradip Kumar Dey (2006air SCW 5644) [2000 (8) SCC 580], sankar Deb Acharya vs. Biswanath Chakraborty [2007 (1) SCC 309] and Union of India vs. Arun (2007air SCW 6227) Jyoti Kundu and others [2007 (7) SCC 472].
(3.) SHRI Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the judgments of this Court in Indian Charge Chrome (2005air SCW 1998)Ltd. vs. Union of India [2005 (4) SCC 67], Board of Control for (2005air SCW 230)Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club [2005 (4) SCC 741] and k. T. Veerappa vs. State of Karnataka[2006 (9) SCC406]and ar- (2006 AIRSCW 2l97)\ gued that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality by reviewing order dated 25. 2. 1997. Learned counsel further argued that failure of the appellants to sanction posts in Scale Nos. 19 and 21 for members of the service resulted in hostile discrimination between similarly situated persons and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed them to extend the benefit of those scales to the respondents. Shri Mehta pointed out that order passed in Joydeb Biswas's case was relied upon by the Tribunal for the limited purpose of reiterating the settled legal position that the recommendations made by the secretary of the Administrative Department are binding on the State Government and argued that this Court may not interfere with the orders under challenge on the ground that the Tribunal did not advert to the grounds of review enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Shri Mehta emphasized that the respondents were stagnating on the same posts and were drawing salary in the same pay scale since 1982 and argued even though this fact was clearly discernible from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Tribunal failed to consider the same and dismissed the transferred application on the specious ground that the State Government had the discretion to prescribe different pay scales for different posts and services. Learned counsel then referred to Memorandum dated 13. 3. 2001 to show that the State Government suo mom sanctioned posts in Scale no. 19 for different services including the one to which the respondents belonged and argued that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality by taking cognizance of the said Memorandum for the purpose of recording a positive finding on the issue of discrimination in the matter of grant of higher pay scales to similarly situated persons. We have given serious thought to the entire matter and scrutinized the record. Articles 323a and 323b were inserted in the Constitution by section 46 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 in the backdrop of pendency of large number of cases relating to recruitment and conditions of service of the employees of the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities and other matters concerning the public at large before the civil Courts throughout the country and long delays in the disposal of such cases which adversely affected administrative set up/structure at various levels of governance and recovery of revenue etc. These Articles enabled Parliament to make laws for creation of alternative adjudicatory forums comprising of experts i. e. the Tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction, power and authority to deal with and decide the 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 etc. and other matters enumerated in Clause 2 of Article 323b.;