Principle Of 'Forum Conveniens' Can't Override CAT Rules Giving Primacy To Applicant's Location To Decide Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) refusing to transfer a service dispute from its Ernakulam Bench to the Principal Bench in Delhi, holding that the principle of forum conveniens cannot override the statutory scheme under the CAT (Procedure) Rules, which accords primacy to the applicant's place of posting.A Division Bench of Justices C....
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) refusing to transfer a service dispute from its Ernakulam Bench to the Principal Bench in Delhi, holding that the principle of forum conveniens cannot override the statutory scheme under the CAT (Procedure) Rules, which accords primacy to the applicant's place of posting.
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that under Rule 6(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, an original application is ordinarily to be filed before the Bench within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted or where the cause of action arises.
Therefore, respondents cannot invoke the principle of forum conveniens to compel applicants to litigate before another Bench, it held.
"Even if the principle of forum conveniens is to be pressed into service, if the applicants are situated in one location and the respondents in another, given Rule 6 (1) (i), ordinarily the convenient forum would be the forum where the applicants are situated and not where the respondents are situated," the Court observed.
The original applicants before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of the petitioners.
The petitioners (original respondents) contended that since the impugned promotion order was issued in Delhi and a majority of the respondents were located outside Kerala, the matter should be transferred to the Principal Bench.
They relied on the doctrine of forum conveniens and argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider the convenience of the respondents while rejecting the transfer plea.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that the petitioners themselves were spread across several States, with only 17 of them posted in Delhi. In such circumstances, the Court held that the principle of forum conveniens was inapplicable even on facts.
The Bench further observed that unlike Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Rule 6(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules gives primacy to the location of the applicant before the Tribunal rather than the respondent.
The Court also endorsed the CAT Chairperson's reasoning that the original applicants, being the dominus litis, were entitled to institute proceedings before the Ernakulam Bench, which admittedly had jurisdiction over the matter.
The Bench further held that the power of the CAT Chairperson under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to transfer cases from one Bench to another is administrative and discretionary in nature, and interference under Article 226 is warranted only if the decision is based on erroneous principles or is manifestly arbitrary or perverse.
“Besides, we have to be conscious of the fact that, with the advent of technology, it is possible for parties located at different locations in the country to participate in proceedings virtually, even if they are not physically in a position to travel,” the Court observed and dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar and Mr. Sahitya Sharma, Advs. for Petitioners; Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nitish Pande, Advs. for R-1 to R-3 Mr. Krishna Kumar Sharma, SPC with Mr. Bipul Kumar, GP for UOI
Case title: Maheshwar Narayan Sharma And Ors v. M V Babu Svaminath And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7815/2026