LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 18Decided 6 Jan 2022
Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2022
A.M. Khanwilkar · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the then Chief Secretary of West Bengal, was issued a disciplinary charge memo for allegedly failing to attend a review meeting chaired by the Prime Minister to assess damage caused by Cyclone Yaas. He challenged the disciplinary proceedings before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). While that challenge was pending, the Union of India got the case transferred from the Kolkata Bench to the CAT's Principal Bench in New Delhi under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Bandyopadhyay then challenged this transfer order before the Calcutta High Court, which set aside the transfer, prompting the Union of India's appeal to the Supreme Court on the narrow question of which High Court had jurisdiction to review a transfer order passed by the Tribunal's Principal Bench in New Delhi.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that under the Constitution Bench ruling in L. Chandra Kumar's case, all decisions of tribunals set up under Articles 323A/323B, including an order transferring a case between benches under Section 25 of the Act, can only be reviewed by the Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the tribunal bench that passed the order is located. Since the transfer order was passed by the Chairman sitting at the Principal Bench in New Delhi, only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to review it, not the Calcutta High Court. The Court therefore held that the Calcutta High Court had acted entirely without jurisdiction, declared its judgment void from the start ("ab initio void"), and set it aside, while dismissing the writ petition with liberty for Bandyopadhyay to approach the Delhi High Court instead, clarifying that it had made no finding on the merits of the transfer itself.

Lesson Learnt

A challenge to an order of a tribunal, including an internal order transferring a case between its benches, must be filed in the High Court that has territorial jurisdiction over the bench that actually passed the order, not the bench where the case originated or where the affected person resides.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case