- The Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Bill, 2012 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on April 27, 2012 by Mr. V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on May 29, 2012.
- The Bill amends the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Act establishes Administrative Tribunals to adjudicate on disputes relating to the conditions of service of public servants at the central, state and local level authorities.
- Under the Act, the Chairman of the Tribunal shall be a present or former judge of a High Court. The Bill provides that the chairman shall be a ‘Supreme Court judge’ or ‘the Chief Justice of a High Court’.
- Under the Act, the Chief Justice of India is consulted only in case of the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Central Tribunal. In case of the State Tribunals and Joint Administrative Tribunals, the Chairman and members are appointed by the President in consultation with the Governor of the concerned state. The Bill provides that Chief Justice of India shall also be consulted in the appointment of the Chairman and the members of the State and Joint Administrative Tribunals.
- The salaries and other benefits of the Chairman shall be on the same terms as a Supreme Court Judge or the Chief Justice of a High Court. In case of the other members, they shall be eligible to the benefits that are applicable to a High Court Judge.
- The Act confers the power to transfer a pending case from one bench to another bench on the Chairman of the Tribunal. The Bill provides that in addition to the Chairman, a member authorised by the Chairman shall also be empowered to transfer the pending cases.
- The Bill states that it shall be applicable prospectively. However, the Chairman and members eligible for re-appointment shall be considered for fresh appointment in terms of the Bill.
Oct 30, 2012
DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information. You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for noncommercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research (“PRS”). The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s). PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete. PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group. This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.