Express News Service Posted online: Fri Oct 29 2010, 03:48 hrs
Chandigarh : The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh, has expressed anguish on the orders being passed by the Chandigarh Administration in terms of administration. Dismissing an application filed by one Narinder Kumar, resident of Sector 37-A, Chandigarh, who had sought promotion to the post of Head of Department in Institute of Polytechnic, a division bench comprising Justice (retd) S D Anand (judicial member) and Khushi Ram (administrative member of the Tribunal) held the application was devoid of merit. The Bench disapproved the conduct of the Administration in not passing orders on administrative side without reasons.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice S D Anand said, “Whenever an employee raises a claim before the competent administrative authorities the latter must notice each item from what the claimant draws sustenance and then to negative it by indicating the precise reasons thereof. If the claim is negated for want of any rule authorising it, the order must state so. If there is indeed is a rule in the context but the claimant does not make the benchmark the order must say so. If there is any other cause justifying the negation of the claim, even then the order must indicate it. The order must announce the result and also the basis thereof.” However, the Bench has made it clear that the observations are not aimed at any specific department. “We would like to express our anguish about the manner in which competent authorities have been found to have been granting orders on the administrative side. Before proceeding further it may be clarified that idea of penning our sentiments which stem from whatever we have been observing the course of adjudicatory functioning, is to inform all concerned to grant self contained orders. These observations are not meant to be directed at any particular department including the competent authority,”the order reads.
Narinder alleged he had not been considered for promotion, wrongly.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice S D Anand said, “Whenever an employee raises a claim before the competent administrative authorities the latter must notice each item from what the claimant draws sustenance and then to negative it by indicating the precise reasons thereof. If the claim is negated for want of any rule authorising it, the order must state so. If there is indeed is a rule in the context but the claimant does not make the benchmark the order must say so. If there is any other cause justifying the negation of the claim, even then the order must indicate it. The order must announce the result and also the basis thereof.” However, the Bench has made it clear that the observations are not aimed at any specific department. “We would like to express our anguish about the manner in which competent authorities have been found to have been granting orders on the administrative side. Before proceeding further it may be clarified that idea of penning our sentiments which stem from whatever we have been observing the course of adjudicatory functioning, is to inform all concerned to grant self contained orders. These observations are not meant to be directed at any particular department including the competent authority,”the order reads.
Narinder alleged he had not been considered for promotion, wrongly.
