Final Decision Lies with CAGI’: Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Over Transfer Dispute
Kiran Raj
A recent decision by the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction in an administrative dispute regarding the rejection of a transfer request. The central question was whether the case should be adjudicated before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) when the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAGI), the competent authority in the matter, was headquartered in New Delhi. The court examined the application of Rule 6(1)(ii) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, in relation to the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
The dispute arose from a case in which an employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IA&AD), posted in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, sought a transfer to Patna, Bihar, under the government’s spouse posting policy. The employee’s spouse was working in Patna, and under the existing policy, government employees could seek a transfer to be posted at the same location as their spouse.
The employee submitted a formal representation requesting the transfer, citing guidelines from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The request was denied by the respondents on administrative grounds, and the rejection was communicated through letters dated October 6, 2022, and November 10, 2023. The applicant subsequently challenged this rejection before the Principal Bench of the CAT, arguing that the decision-making authority, the CAGI, was located in New Delhi.
The respondents opposed the challenge, stating that the case should be heard at the appropriate bench where the applicant was employed, which in this case was Gwalior. They argued that the rejection of the transfer request was handled at the local administrative level and did not require direct intervention by the CAGI. They further stated that administrative convenience required that such matters be adjudicated within the jurisdiction where the applicant was posted.
The Tribunal’s Chairman allowed the application to be retained at the Principal Bench, which led to the respondents challenging this decision before the High Court. The grounds for their challenge were that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the case should be heard at a different bench under the governing rules.
The court examined the application of Rule 6(1)(ii) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which allows an application to be filed at a bench within whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen. The court stated, "If part of the cause of action has indeed arisen within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, Rule 6(1)(ii) straightway permits institution of the OA at the Principal Bench, and nothing more is needed."
The judgment referred to a policy circular issued by the CAGI on August 6, 2021, which outlined the process for considering transfer requests on spousal grounds. The court cited the circular, which states, "In case of inability to accept the requests for deputation of officials on spouse grounds / extension in the tenure of deputation of officials on spouse grounds, specific reasons along with case details, may be forwarded to Headquarters office for taking final decision by the Competent Authority."
The court observed that the CAGI’s headquarters was in New Delhi and noted, "The final decision, therefore, is not of the Head of the Office where the employee is posted. It is of the CAGI, who has to be informed as to why the request cannot be accommodated."
The court examined whether the involvement of the CAGI constituted a valid reason for the applicant to approach the Principal Bench. The respondents contended that the involvement of the CAGI was procedural and did not create a cause of action in New Delhi. The court stated, "The jurisdiction to issue such a direction to the CAGI – which the respondent seeks, based on the CAGI’s own circular dated 6 August 2021 – unquestionably vests with the Principal Bench."
The judgment also examined whether the Tribunal Chairman had the authority under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to retain a case at the Principal Bench when an objection regarding jurisdiction had been raised before a coordinate bench. The court stated, "The power of the Hon’ble Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another, as conferred by Section 25 of the AT Act, is a self-contained independent power. Section 25 is not made subject to any other provision. It can, therefore, be invoked at any stage."
The court found that the prayers in the Original Application (OA) filed by the applicant included a request to quash the rejection letters and a request for a direction to transfer the applicant based on DoPT guidelines and CAGI policy. It examined the definition of "cause of action" and referred to previous Supreme Court rulings that defined the term as including "every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed."
The judgment referred to several precedents, including Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair and Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, stating, "The 'cause of action' means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court."
The judgment discussed whether the presence of the CAGI as a respondent justified jurisdiction at the Principal Bench. It stated that the policy circular required rejected transfer requests to be forwarded to CAGI headquarters, and as a result, "if the CAGI was empowered to take a decision in the matter, as per the extant Rules or instructions, then no fault can be found with the view of the Tribunal that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi."
The judgment concluded that part of the cause of action arose in New Delhi because the final decision regarding the applicant’s transfer request was to be taken by the CAGI. It stated, "The OA filed by the respondent was, therefore, competent before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, in view of Rule 6(1)(ii) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules."
The court dismissed the writ petition and stated that its observations were limited to the issue of territorial jurisdiction. It noted that its findings should not be considered an opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims, including the claim for intervention by the CAGI. The judgment stated, "We have only adjudicated on the aspect of competence of the OA before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, based on the prayers of the respondent, and the case that he has set up. The merits of the said case would independently have to be decided by the Tribunal."
Case Title: Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors. v. Nirbhay Kumar Santosh
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1392-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 17210/2024
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
[Read/Download order]
