HP STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION

HP  STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION

SHIMLA

Majitha House, Chhotta Shimla, Shimla-2 (HP)

 

Ref                                                                                          Dated: 29.04.2008

 

RESOLUTION

 

It has been resolved unan­i­mously by the mem­bers of Bar that the State Gov­ern­ment be apprised of the fol­low­ing facts:-

1)               That ever since incep­tion of HP State Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal, no con­crete steps have been taken to strengthen the Benches and staff of the Tri­bunal com­men­su­rate with the increase in lit­i­ga­tion and aspi­ra­tions of the employee lit­i­gants.  The details of cases insti­tuted and decided is given as under:-

Year	Insti­tu­tions	Dis­posal
1986	1031	94
1987	1195	887
1988	1175	950
1989	1704	1932
1990	4012	3797
1991	4548	4048
1992	5145	5647
1993	4503	3328
1994	8068	3896
1995	7320	6355
1996	6073	5128
1997	6255	4458
1998	6037	3791
1999	8860	5467
2000	11735	8234
2001	8430	6116
2002	8336	5734
2003	10011	8153
2004	10109	9266
2005	7855	9054
2006	9724	12225
2007	9384	9696
Upto Feb 2008	1049	636
Total	1,42,559	1,18,892

 

2)               From above fig­ures, it is amply evi­dent that by any stan­dard dis­posal of cases have been very huge, due to which rea­son, the employ­ees lit­i­gants have reposed con­fi­dence in the Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal by fil­ing more and more cases to redress their grievances.

3)               That the posts of Chairman/Vice-Chairman/Members have remained vacant for most period as per the details given hereunder:-

Period	Dura­tion of posts remain­ing vacant	Name of post
1989–1991	1 year 3 months	Mem­ber (A)
1990–91	1 year	Mem­ber (J)
1992–95	3 years 5 months	Chair­man
1992–1994	1 year 11 months	Mem­ber (A)
1995–96	3 months	Mem­ber (A)
1997	4 months	Mem­ber (J)
1998–99	1 year 2 months	Chair­man
1999	2 months	Mem­ber (A)
2002–2003	1 year 9 months	Mem­ber (A)
2001–2004	2 years 8 months	Mem­ber (J)
2002	1 month	Mem­ber (J)
2003–2004	1 year	Mem­ber (A)
2005	5 months	Mem­ber (A)
2005	3 months	Chair­man
Since 08.09.2007 till date		M ember (J)

 

4)               The above facts amply goes to show, that due to non-appointment of Chairman/Members dur­ing above period amount­ing to about 11 years, the work in Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal has suf­fered immensely.

5)               That the Judges/Members of the HP State Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal have at all times put their best to decide the lit­i­ga­tions to the fullest extent as is humanly pos­si­ble for the quick dis­posal of the cases.

6)               That it is also being wrongly rep­re­sented that the large num­bers of lit­i­ga­tions are per­tain­ing to trans­fers only, which is belied by the facts as under:-

Year	Total Insti­tu­tions	Total Decided	Trans­fer cases instituted	Trans­fer cases decided	Total pen­dency of trans­fer cases	Total pen­dency of other cases
2006	9724	12225	1574	1178	396	23565
2007	9384	9696	1502	875	627	23254
Till Feb 2008	1049	636	282	106	176	23667
Total	20157	22557	3358	2159	1199

 

7)               That the above fig­ures belie the wrong pic­ture being given to the State Gov­ern­ment with cal­cu­lated design to tar­nish the image of Admin­is­tra­tive Tribunal.

8)               That it is also being wrongly rep­re­sented to the State Gov­ern­ment that Tri­bunals in many other States have also been closed.  As a mat­ter of fact, 23 benches of Cen­tral Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunals are still func­tion­ing right since their incep­tion very sat­is­fac­to­rily and Cen­tral Gov­ern­ment has gone into detailed inquiry about their func­tion­ing and found them right and have rec­om­mended to strengthen the said insti­tu­tions.  Like­wise, Five State Admin­is­tra­tive Tribunal’s were opened in MP, HP, AP, TN and Orissa, out of which three Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunals are func­tion­ing quite sat­is­fac­to­rily and only one Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal in MP was closed due to bifur­ca­tion of the State.  The mat­ter regard­ing clo­sure of TN Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal is pend­ing adju­di­ca­tion before the courts.

9)               That the Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal is a spe­cial­ized insti­tute cre­ated under Arti­cle 323-A of the Con­sti­tu­tion of India.  Like­wise, many spe­cial­ized institutes/tribunals for indus­trial mat­ters, Army, Debt Recov­ery, Motor Acci­dents, Con­sumer Dis­putes are in exis­tence or being cre­ated and strength­ened day by day.  So there is need to strengthen the HP State Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal by pro­vid­ing ample addi­tional Benches and com­men­su­rate staff to meet the aspi­ra­tions of the employees.

10)           That wrong pic­ture is being given to the State Gov­ern­ment by the per­sons with ulte­rior motives and vested inter­est.  Before the State Gov­ern­ment takes any deci­sion to close the Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal, the Tri­bunal Bar Asso­ci­a­tions of Shimla, Dharamshala and Mandi Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal Bar be con­sulted as well the lit­i­gant employ­ees and their actual rep­re­sen­ta­tive or their coun­sels be con­sulted to get the clear pic­ture.  How­ever, some of main pit­falls of clo­sure deci­sion may be envis­aged as under:-

1. That the employee lit­i­gant will be the major suf­ferer of such deci­sion, as he will end up by pay­ing more coun­sel fess and expenses to insti­tute afresh lit­i­ga­tion and thus curse such a decision.

 

1. That even the State Gov­ern­ment will itself face many admin­is­tra­tive prob­lems, as the cases will be spread over in 135 courts all over State and to meet such sit­u­a­tion will have to increase its legal cell staff hun­dreds of time more and even Sec­re­taries and other offi­cials will find them­selves most of time depos­ing in var­i­ous courts spread in the State and will have lit­tle time to do their admin­is­tra­tive work effec­tively, due to cum­ber­some legal procedure.

 

1. That the State Gov­ern­ment should bear in mind the rea­sons and objec­tives of cre­at­ing the Admin­is­tra­tive Tribunal.

 

1. That the State Gov­ern­ment should take notice of the recent rec­om­men­da­tions of Rajya Sabha Com­mit­tee on Per­son­nel, Pub­lic Griev­ances, Law and Jus­tice Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunals (Amend­ment) Bill, 2006 Report No. 17 dated 05.12.2006, wherein inter­alia it has rec­om­mended to com­pul­so­rily open Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunals in all States.

 

The above facts make out a strong case for strength­en­ing the Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal.  The present pen­dency of the cases is attrib­ut­able to the above rea­sons and noth­ing else.  In view of above, it is resolved that the State Gov­ern­ment be requested to strengthen the Admin­is­tra­tive tri­bunal by tak­ing the fol­low­ing steps:-

 

a)               That imme­di­ate action be taken to fill up the vacant post of Mem­ber (J) and timely action be ini­ti­ated to fill up the post of Chair­man, going to fall vacant in June, 2008;

 

b)               That two per­ma­nent cir­cuit Benches of Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal as already decided be opened immediately;

 

c)               That two more addi­tional Benches of Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal be opened at Shimla to clear the back­log of the cases.

 

It has been unan­i­mously resolved that the copy above res­o­lu­tion be pre­sented to the Hon’ble Chief Min­is­ter, appris­ing him of the fac­tual ground real­i­ties as well as to all other Hon’ble Min­is­ters and Sh. Suresh Bhard­waj Ji, Hon’ble MLA and ex-President of HP State Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal Bar Asso­ci­a­tion and the lit­i­gant employees/their respec­tive rep­re­sen­ta­tives and media persons.

Prem P. Chauhan, President

HP State Admin­is­tra­tive Bar Association

1. About

View all posts by →

HP STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION