Union of India vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors.
Background
A civil servant had challenged the government's system for empanelling officers to Joint Secretary-level posts before the Nainital Circuit Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Union of India got the case transferred from the Nainital Bench to the CAT's Principal Bench in New Delhi, but the Uttarakhand High Court quashed that transfer, holding that a policy challenge need not necessarily be heard only by the Principal Bench. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the Uttarakhand High Court had no territorial jurisdiction at all to entertain such a challenge, relying on the Court's own precedent in Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, while the respondent urged that judgment needed reconsideration.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court did not decide the underlying jurisdictional question itself. Instead, noting that the dispute over whether only the High Court where a Tribunal's Principal Bench sits (i.e., Delhi) has jurisdiction to hear challenges to CAT transfer orders, or whether other High Courts retain jurisdiction under Article 226(2) wherever part of the cause of action arose, affects a large number of government employees nationwide and is a matter of public importance, the Court referred the entire question to a Larger Bench for authoritative resolution, directing the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
Lesson Learnt
Where an employee's cause of action arises partly outside Delhi (e.g., service records, recommendation, or posting in another state), whether that state's High Court can hear a challenge to a Central Administrative Tribunal transfer order was left unsettled by this ruling and referred for larger-bench clarification: employees should watch for that eventual ruling before assuming which High Court has jurisdiction over such disputes.