Part of Cause of Action Arose in Delhi; CAT Principal Bench Has Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

In a significant ruling Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Principal Bench, holding that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, thereby making the filing of the service transfer case before the Principal Bench valid. The judgment, delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, came in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAGI) & Ors. v. Nirbhay Kumar Santosh.

 “CAT Chairman’s Power to Transfer Cases is Independent and Can Be Exercised at Any Stage”
The case stemmed from an Original Application (OA) filed before the Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi, by Nirbhay Kumar Santosh, an officer posted in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, seeking a transfer to Patna, Bihar, where his spouse was posted. The application challenged the rejection of his transfer request by CAGI and sought directions to consider his case under DoPT guidelines on spouse posting.

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAGI) objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, arguing that since the officer was posted in Madhya Pradesh, the case should be heard there. However, the Chairman of CAT, exercising powers under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, ruled that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and retained the case before the Principal Bench.

Challenging this decision before the Delhi High Court, CAGI contended that CAT does not have the power to retain a case at a Bench and can only transfer matters from one Bench to another. The Court, however, upheld the CAT Chairman’s authority and observed:
“The power of the CAT Chairman under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is a self-contained independent power. It is not made subject to any other provision and can be invoked at any stage.”

 “Final Authority to Decide Transfer Lies with CAGI, Whose Office is in Delhi”
The Delhi High Court reasoned that the CAGI headquarters in Delhi was the final decision-making authority on the respondent’s transfer request. The Court noted that the CAGI’s circular dated August 6, 2021, clearly states that:
“In case of inability to accept the requests for deputation of officials on spouse grounds, specific reasons along with case details must be forwarded to Headquarters office for final decision by the Competent Authority.”

Since the final decision-making authority was based in Delhi, the Court held that:
“If part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, Rule 6(1)(ii) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules straightaway permits the institution of the OA at the Principal Bench, and nothing more is needed.”

 “Jurisdictional Objections Cannot Bar CAT Chairman’s Power”
The High Court rejected CAGI’s argument that the pending jurisdictional objection before another CAT Bench should have restrained the Chairman from exercising his power. The Court held that:
“The fact that an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was pending before another Bench does not inhibit either party from filing an application under Section 25 of the AT Act before the Hon’ble Chairman, and equally does not inhibit the Hon’ble Chairman from deciding the said application.”

The Court further emphasized that the principles governing “cause of action” under civil law apply to service matters, stating:

“A cause of action includes every fact which, if traversed, the applicant must prove to obtain relief. If any material part of the cause of action arises in a place, the concerned court or tribunal has jurisdiction.”

Dismissing CAGI’s writ petition, the Delhi High Court ruled that the CAT Principal Bench had jurisdiction over the matter, as the final decision-making authority (CAGI) was based in Delhi.

The ruling reinforces the legal principle that where an authority’s headquarters plays a decisive role in service matters, the jurisdiction of tribunals in that location is justified.

With this judgment, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the power of the CAT Chairman under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, ensuring that government employees seeking service-related reliefs are not denied access to the appropriate legal forum based on procedural objections.
 

Date of Decision: 04 March 2025