The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), established in 1985, adjudicates disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of central government employees, following principles of natural justice and procedural flexibility to ensure speedy and cost-effective resolution of cases.

Filing an Original Application

To file an Original Application (OA) with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), applicants must follow a specific procedure:

• Prepare the OA in the prescribed format, including details such as name, address, respondents, statement of facts, and reliefs sought.
• Attach an affidavit verifying the contents of the application and supporting documents.
• Pay the nominal fee of Rs. 50/- (with provisions for exemption in cases of indigence).
• Submit the complete set of documents to the appropriate CAT bench, determined by the applicant's posting location or cause of action.
• Ensure filing within one year of the final order or six months after an unanswered representation.

The CAT may relax the limitation period in deserving cases and has the power to entertain applications even when departmental remedies haven't been exhausted. E-filing options are now available through the CAT portal, allowing for more convenient submission of applications and related documents.

Stages of CAT Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) follows a structured process for handling cases, which typically involves four key stages:

• Registration and Verification: The tribunal registers the petition and verifies the case's eligibility.
• Pre-hearing: CAT may schedule a pre-hearing to discuss case details and identify initial issues.
• Hearing: Both parties present their arguments and evidence before the tribunal.
• Judgment: The tribunal issues a decision, outlining its reasoning and any remedies.

Throughout these stages, CAT adheres to principles of natural justice and is not bound by Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act. The tribunal has the authority to frame its own procedural rules, as evidenced by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993. This flexibility allows CAT to expedite case resolution while maintaining fairness in its proceedings.

Role of Natural Justice in CAT

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), since is not bound by Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act, adheres rigorously to the principles of natural justice in its adjudication process, ensuring fairness and impartiality in resolving service-related disputes. CAT's commitment to natural justice is manifested through three key principles:

• Audi alteram partem (hear the other side): CAT provides both parties ample opportunity to present their cases, ensuring no one is condemned unheard.
• Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause): CAT maintains impartiality by preventing bias in decision-making, with members recusing themselves if conflicts of interest arise.
• Reasoned decisions: CAT issues "speaking orders" that provide clear rationales for judgments, enabling transparency and facilitating potential appeals.

These principles are integral to CAT's functioning, balancing procedural flexibility with fundamental fairness. In cases like Satyender v. Government of NCT of Delhi Principal Bench: New Delhi, OA No.1319/2021, CAT has reaffirmed the essentiality of due process in administrative actions, particularly in service terminations. This adherence to natural justice principles enhances CAT's credibility and effectiveness in resolving disputes between government employees and their employers.

Appellate Jurisdiction Hierarchy

Appeals against orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) follow a structured process:

• Orders passed by CAT in its original jurisdiction can be appealed to the High Court within 60 days under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
• Appeals against CAT orders in contempt proceedings lie directly to the Supreme Court within 60 days under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from CAT's contempt orders.
• For appeals to the Supreme Court, proposals must be sent through proper channels with detailed grounds and relevant documents within prescribed timelines.

This appellate structure aims to balance the need for judicial review with the finality of CAT decisions in service matters. The limitation periods and procedural requirements ensure timely resolution while allowing redressal of grievances against CAT orders.

Further scope of another Appeal- Under Article 136 by an SLP

Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) to the Supreme Court against High Court decisions under Articles 226/227 are governed by specific procedural and jurisdictional considerations:

• SLPs can be filed under Article 136 of the Constitution within 90 days of the High Court order, with the Supreme Court having discretion to grant leave.
• The Supreme Court exercises its SLP jurisdiction sparingly, typically only in cases involving substantial questions of law or gross miscarriage of justice.
• For SLPs against CAT-related High Court orders, the Supreme Court has held that judicial review under Articles 226/227 is part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be ousted.
• However, the Supreme Court has clarified that High Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with Tribunal orders, limiting intervention to cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice.

This appellate mechanism ensures a balance between finality of CAT decisions and the constitutional safeguard of judicial review, while maintaining the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate arbiter in service jurisprudence.

CAT Disposal Timelines

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has demonstrated a high efficiency in case disposal, with an average disposal rate exceeding 90% since its inception in 1985. As of November 30, 2022, CAT had received 893,705 cases, of which 812,806 were disposed of, leaving a pendency of 80,899 cases.

Despite this high disposal rate, the average time for case resolution varies and can be roughly be considered to be between is 2 - 4 years for OA cases. Some complex cases can take even further time.

The tribunal aims to resolve cases within 6 months of registration as per procedural rules. However, actual disposal times often exceed this target due to factors such as case complexity, infrastructure limitations, and appointment delays. To address prolonged pendencies, CAT has been advised to prioritize cases pending for over 10 years and pension-related matters.

A significant portion of petitioners (around 30%) are Group B employees, with Group A employees comprising about 26%.  However, the Central/ State departments are often unresponsive to grievances, forcing them to approach CAT as a last resort. This contributes to the flood of cases at CAT, many of which could potentially be resolved at earlier stages through improved departmental grievance redressal mechanisms.

Tribunal's Evolving Jurisprudence

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) plays a crucial role in India's administrative justice system, providing an efficient forum for resolving service-related disputes of central government employees. Since its inception in 1985, CAT has disposed of over 90% of the cases filed, demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing the burden on regular courts. However, challenges persist, including a backlog of cases pending for over 10 years and issues related to infrastructure and staffing.

CAT's adherence to principles of natural justice, procedural flexibility, and specialized expertise in service matters has contributed to its success. Yet, the tribunal faces ongoing challenges in balancing speedy resolution with thorough adjudication. As CAT continues to evolve, addressing issues such as vacancy filling, technological upgrades, and streamlining of processes will be crucial for maintaining its efficacy and ensuring timely justice for government employees. The tribunal's future effectiveness will depend on its ability to adapt to changing administrative landscapes while upholding its core mandate of fair and expeditious dispute resolution.