DR PARVEEN vs ENVIRONMENT , FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT

1 MA No.90/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Misc. Application No.90/2025
in
Original Application No.566/2024

Pronounced on : 26.10.2026
Reserved on : 01.10.2026
CORAM

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA, MEMBER (A)

Dr. Parveen w/o Dr. Hilaluddin, C-12, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ext.-II, Pehli
Poolia, Opp. Mahesh Public School, Jodhpur.
…..Applicant
By Advocate : Dr. Hilaluddin

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment,
Forests & Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh
Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and
Education, FRI Campus, P.O.: New Forest, Dehradun - 248006.
..... Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. K.S. Yadav

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,
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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.
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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.
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
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
Digitally signed by Radhe Shyam
Songara
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR ",
OU=PRIVATE SECRETARY,
PostalCode=342003, S=Rajasthan,
SERIALNUMBER=
b9df04312f53f00f720974ca155836fa
54ca986db2ee75670488a0e9babb9
9bf, CN=Radhe Shyam Songara
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.29 10:35:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Radhe
Shyam
Songara