DR PARVEEN vs ENVIRONMENT , FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT on 26 October 2026

ORDER

Per Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

Applicant filed this MA seeking quashing of the order of the Reviewing Committee/Representation Committee issued on 31.01.2025,

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

2 MA No.90/2025

whereby the decision taken by the competent authority i.e. the Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), for premature retirement of the applicant has been upheld.

2. The applicant through the instant Misc. Application has submitted that the Secretary, ICFRE, vide order No.48-5/2019-20-ICFRE (Part-III) dated 31.01.2025 communicated to the applicant herein that the Representation/Review Committee in its meeting held on 08.01.2025 has upheld the premature retirement of the applicant under rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 2021. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the instant OA was filed on 06.11.2024 against the order of the respondent authority dated 17.09.2024, after completion of the mandatory limitation of period of 42 days in accordance with the rule 14 of DoPT OM No.25013/03/2019-ESTT A-IV dated 28.08.2020. 2.1 Applicant further clarified that the applicant submitted a representation on 22.09.2024 against the order of the premature retirement dated 17.09.2024. After waiting for the limitation period of 42 days, the applicant filed OA No.566/2024 before this Tribunal, as the only remedy available in terms of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. This Tribunal seized of the applicant's matter on 14.11.2024, and respondent accepted the notice during open court and sought further time to file the reply. Therefore, the decision of the Representation Committee is bad in law because the matter was filed in the tribunal on 14.11.2025, then Representation Committee should not have decided the representation after the limitation period.

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

3 MA No.90/2025

2.2 He further referred the provision of the Section 19(4) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which states as follows:- “Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject-matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules.” Therefore, despite the respondent has accepted the notice issued by this Tribunal and also filed objection against the interim relief sought by the applicant herein. In spite of that, they have taken a decision on the pending appeal/representation which is also a subject matter pending before this Tribunal. Additionally, the applicant had also raised several contentions in her representation dated 22.09.2024. However, the Representation Committee had not taken any decision and when representation was decided by the Representation Committee they have justified the decision of the respondent no.2 which prima facie could have been concluded from the content of the communication dated 31st January 2025 by the secretary ICFRE. Therefore, the applicant reserve the right to assail the decision dated 08.01.2025 of the representation Committee which was communicated vide order dated 31.01.2025. 2.3 He also referred Section 19(4) of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 which stipulates that when the application is admitted by Tribunal, all appeal and representations stand abated. On the basis of aforesaid facts, he referred the cases where this subject was dealt, especially in the case of Shiv Kumar B. Nayak vs. Union of India and ors., (2005 (3) SLJ

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

4 MA No.90/2025

210 CAT, Shibu M. Job vs. Alok Saxena 2011, in OA No.383/2010 of CAT Ernakulam, and S. Chitra vs Director of Fire Services and Ors., 2009 W.P.C. No.37598/2006 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, on the basis of the above fact, the verdict of the Representation Committee taken vide order dated 08.01.2025 is treated to be no verdict, and therefore same is required to be set aside. 2.4 In view of the above circumstances, he prayed that the order communicated vide Memo No.48-5/2019-20 ICFRE (Part-III) dated 31.01.2025 be taken on record and quash/set aside/declare nullity the decision/verdict dated 08.01.2025 by the Representation Committee communicated vide order dated 31.01.2025.

3. E-converso, the respondents filed reply to the MA filed by the applicant herein, wherein learned counsel for the respondents denied the averment made by the applicant in the aforesaid MA and further submitted that the applicant had filed MA purported to be under Rule 8(3) of Central Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules 1987, seeking to quash the order dated 31.012025, whereby the representation filed by the applicant against the order dated 17.09.2024, premature retiring the applicant under FR 56(j) and rule 48 of CCS Pension Rules 1972 read with Rule 42 of CCS Pension Rule, 2021 had been rejected by the Representation Committee. Through the instant MA, the applicant sought to quash the order passed upon her representation. Learned counsel for the respondents further referred the Rule 8(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Practice) Rules 1987, whereby an applicant may make a suitable application for interim order/direction subsequent to filing an OA under section 19 of the Act. However, the instant MA

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

5 MA No.90/2025

has been filed for seeking a final relief of quashing the order dated 31.01.2025. Therefore, the present MA filed under Rule 8(3) of Administrative Tribunal (Practice) Rules 1987 is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed outrightly. 3.1 He further contended that the applicant filed the present OA assailing the order dated 17.09.2025 issued by respondents. It is appropriate to mention that the applicant has filed representation on 22.09.2024 against the aforesaid order of premature retirement dated 17.09.2024, and without awaiting the outcome of the representation, the applicant preferred present OA No.566/2024 before the expiry of the limitation period of 6 months since the filing of the representation. It is also categorically stated that the instant OA had not been admitted as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, the respondents were not precluded to take a decision upon the representation of the applicant. 3.2 The respondents also referred that merely issuing of the notice on the filing of the OA is entirely different than the admission of OA No.566/2024 of the applicant. Consequently, the provision contained in section 19(4) of the Act of 1985 does not attract on the decision of the respondents to decide the representation/appeal filed by the applicant against the premature retirement on 17.09.2024. He also referred the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Deepak Mali (2010) 2 SCC 222, wherein it is stated that an authority is not precluded to take decision upon the representation submitted by the applicant during the pendency of the OA in the absence of any interim order passed by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court had upheld the order of the Hon'ble CAT and Hon'ble High Court, who

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

6 MA No.90/2025

had decided that in absence of any stay against the respondent department authority, the same are not precluded to decide any appeal/revision/review on representation filed by the applicant during the pendency of OA on the subject. While holding so, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:- “7. It was submitted that since the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal, the Petitioner had no option but to stay its hands in regard to the proceedings against the respondent. It was also submitted that on 20th October, 2004, when the Reviewing Committee took up the Petitioners' case, it extended the period of suspension, which was again extended thereafter by order dated 8th April, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the above, the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was liable to be set aside along with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

8. On behalf of the Respondents, it was urged that Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, did not contemplate stay but abatement of proceedings before other authorities once an application was admitted by the Central Administrative Tribunal. By virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 19, on admission of such application proceedings pending before other Courts and Forums would abate unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel contended that in the absence of any stay, nothing prevented the petitioners from reviewing the petitioner's case and the explanation forthcoming for not taking steps under Sub-section (6) of Section 7 must inure to the benefit of the respondent.

10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the Respondent and when the Petitioner's case came up for review on 20th October, 2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of Sub- rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under Sub- rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days.” 3.3 Additionally, it was also submitted that if the applicant had chosen to file the representation dated 22.09.2024 against the impugned

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

7 MA No.90/2025

order dated 17.09.2024, the applicant should have waited to decide such representation at least for a period of 6 months as per provision contained in Section 22(2)(b) i.e. till 22.02.2025. However, the applicant preferred the instant OA before the limitation period, wherein the this Tribunal issued notice, however, no interim order precluding the respondent from taking any action on the representation was passed. Therefore, the respondents were rational in their decision to decide the representation submitted by the applicant vide order dated 31.01.2025. Therefore, on the basis of above, he prayed that MA deserves to be dismissed. 4 In rejoinder as well as in the written submission, the learned counsel for the applicant while reiterating the averments made in the MA further submitted that Secretary, ICFRE confirmed premature retirement of the applicant vide order dated 31.01.2025 after notice were issued on 14.11.2024 in the instant OA filed on 06.11.2024, after completion of the mandatory limitation period of 42 days. The decision dated 31.01.2025 passed by the respondent authority is not-est in the eye of law inasmuch as it is contrary to the provision as laid down in Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He also referred the case as relied by the respondent in the case of Deepak Mali (supra) does not apply in the instant matter as much as the instant OA was filed after 42 days, i.e. the maximum permission limit under FR 56(j) to decide the representation filed by the applicant. 4.1 He also contended to refer the very important provision of the fundamental right of the citizen guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of that, there cannot be two sets of condition

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

8 MA No.90/2025

for the same class of person affected under the same law. If the two sets of conditions for the same class, it will be violative to fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his claim, he quoted the example that CISF or Central University Personnel, compulsory retired under FR 56(j) seeks legal recourse under writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court, as compared with the other Central Government employee affected by FR 56(j) under the AT Act jurisdiction of the CAT. The cause of action under writ jurisdiction arises only after 42 days of the former class, therefore as a corollary principle should have applied to the later class also. He assailed the contention of the respondent that transmission of representation from one authority to another takes time and therefore strict timeline is difficult to comply in deciding the representation.

5. Heard both the learned advocate to decide the issue raised in MA No.90/2025 on the point of setting aside the decision taken by the Representation/Reviewing Committee on the representation of the applicant herein, after filing of the present OA. 5.1 Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that the applicant has filed the present OA against the order of compulsory retirement dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Secretary, ICFRE, Dehradun without waiting for the outcome of the representation dated 22.09.2024 filed by him against the aforesaid order. As per case of the applicant upon failure of the representation committee to decide the representation within 42 days as provided under OM No. 25013/03/2019-Estt.A-IV dated 28.08.2020

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

9 MA No.90/2025

issued by the DoP&T, the cause of action has arisen for challenging the aforesaid retirement order. 5.2 Perusal of the above OM shows that after issuance of the order of premature retirement, the concerned Government servant may submit representation for orders otherwise, within three weeks from the date of service of such notice / order and the matter may be placed before the Representation Committee along with fresh input, if any. The examination of the representation should be completed by the Cadre Authorities within two weeks from the date of receipt of representation. The Representation Committee considering the representation shall make its recommendations within two weeks from the date of receipt of the reference from the Cadre Authorities concerned and the Appropriate/Appointing Authority should pass its orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the Representation Committee. 5.3 The aforesaid provisions reveal that the representation filed by the employee against his premature retirement is processed through the Cadre Authority to the Representation Committee. The Representation Committee thereafter submits its recommendation to the Appropriate/Appointing Authority on receipt of reference with fresh input from the Cadre Authority concerned. The Cadre Authority has been given two weeks from the date of receipt of representation to make reference to the Representation Committee.

Whereas, the Representation Committee is required to make its recommendations within two weeks from the date of receipt of reference from the Cadre Authority concerned. In our considered view the above time framework

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

10 MA No.90/2025

does not mean that the whole process of finalising the representation against premature retirement is to be completed strictly within 42 days of receipt of the representation. The plea of the applicant to complete the process strictly within 42 days of receipt of the representation to the Cadre Authority is misconceived. The applicant has not taken into consideration the reasonable time likely to be consumed in internal communications taking place amongst the Cadre Authority, Representation Committee and Appropriate/Appointing Authority .Time may also be consumed in placing the fresh input on record. Holidays may all fall in between. Therefore the interpretation suggested by learned counsel for the applicant in treating 42 days period as sacrosanct time limit to complete the retirement cannot be accepted . 5.4 Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 directs tribunals not to ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. Clause (a) of sub- section 2 of Section 20 of the Act further clarifies the meaning of final order. An order becomes final when the appeal or representation preferred by the employee in connection with the grievance is rejected. In the present case it is admitted that the final order was yet to be passed by the respondent on the date of filing of the OA. The representation filed against the premature retirement preferred by the applicant as per OM dated 28.08.2020 was still pending for review before the Representation Committee on 05.11.24 i.e the date of filing the present O.A. The applicant, without waiting for the outcome of his representation, has filed the OA.

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

11 MA No.90/2025

5.5 So far as the applicability of provisions of Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is concerned, it does not come into play before admission of the OA filed by the applicant. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that OA has not been admitted. 5.6 We are not in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that after issuance of the notice in the OA, the provisions of Section 19(4) automatically come into play. Issuing notice in the OA and admitting the OA after hearing the parties are not the same thing. Even after issuing notice in the OA, it may not be admitted for want of jurisdiction, limitation and other legal impediments. Otherwise also, the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 cannot be construed as curtailing the procedure envisaged under FR 56 (j) regarding premature retirement. 5.7 Therefore, before admission of the OA in this Tribunal, the applicant cannot pray for declaring the order dated 31.01.2025 whereby the decision of premature retirement of the applicant was upheld, a nullity. 5.8 In the present case, the applicant filed OA before availing remedy as to redressal of her grievances, whereas, she now seeks to declare the decision on her representation vide order dated 31.01.2025 a nullity by filing Miscellaneous Application under Rule 8(3) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 .The scope of availing the remedy of filing MA under the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is for an interim order or direction. The scope of MA cannot be widened by dealing with the question which should have been the subject matter of

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara

12 MA No.90/2025

the OA. In our considered view, the approach adopted by the applicant in the present matter being in gross violation of the provisions of law is an abuse of the process of law deserves to be dismissed with cost 5.9 Accordingly, the instant MA is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- (five thousand only) to be paid to the respondents. 5.10 List the OA on 19.11.2026

(Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA) (RAMESHWAR VYAS)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Rss

Songara document Location:

Radhe Shyam Songara