Tribunal cannot delegate service adjudication, and pay fixation must follow binding statutory rules.

A tribunal vested with service-dispute jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act must decide the dispute itself and cannot remit it to an executive officer; such remission is void. An administrative order passed by the Chief Engineer on an invalid reference cannot operate as res judicata because it is not a competent judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication. No writ of mandamus can compel grant of a pay scale that departs from binding statutory rules framed under Article 309, and courts will not direct service benefits contrary to those rules. On these principles, the tribunal and High Court orders were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Administrative Tribunal could remit a service dispute to the Chief Engineer for decision and thereby delegate its adjudicatory function. (ii) Whether the Chief Engineer's order on pay scale could operate as res judicata. (iii) Whether a writ of mandamus could compel the State to grant a pay scale contrary to statutory rules framed under the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the Administrative Tribunal could remit a service dispute to the Chief Engineer for decision and thereby delegate its adjudicatory function.

Analysis: The jurisdiction conferred on Administrative Tribunals under Article 323A of the Constitution of India and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is meant for adjudication of service disputes by the Tribunal itself. Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 vest that jurisdiction in the Tribunal, and the Tribunal cannot surrender or delegate its essential function to an executive authority. A direction treating an original application as a representation before the Chief Engineer amounted to an impermissible abdication of statutory duty.

Conclusion: The remission of the dispute to the Chief Engineer was void ab initio and could not be acted upon.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Engineer's order on pay scale could operate as res judicata.

Analysis: Res judicata requires a prior adjudication by a competent authority acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. The Chief Engineer had no jurisdiction to decide the service dispute and did not render a valid adjudication between the parties. An administrative order passed on the basis of an invalid reference cannot acquire the character of a binding judicial determination.

Conclusion: The Chief Engineer's order did not operate as res judicata.

Issue (iii): Whether a writ of mandamus could compel the State to grant a pay scale contrary to statutory rules framed under the Constitution.

Analysis: Pay fixation under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is governed by statutory rules and recommendations of Pay Commissions accepted by the Government. Courts do not ordinarily substitute their own view on equivalence of posts or scale of pay, and no mandamus can compel the State to act contrary to binding rules. Since the respondents did not challenge the statutory rules and the impugned directions required deviation from those rules, the relief could not stand.

Conclusion: No mandamus lay to enforce a pay scale contrary to the statutory rules.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the Tribunal and the High Court were unsustainable, and the State was entitled to succeed in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot delegate its adjudicatory jurisdiction to an executive authority, an administrative order passed without jurisdiction cannot attain finality as res judicata, and no court can direct grant of service benefits in contravention of binding statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

---