The Jammu and Kashmir high court need not be so apprehensive about the disposal of cases by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), its chairman L Narasimha Reddy said on Saturday.
Refuting the claims made by J&K high court Chief Justice Gita Mittal, in a letter written to the Centre, over the tribunal’s ability to handle service matters of the employees, justice Reddy said the tribunal has recorded the disposal rate of 104% in the past few months.
“A news item appeared in print as well as electronic media on the basis of the DO letter dated May 8 said to have been addressed by the chief justice of J&K HC to the Union minister Jitendra Singh. The subject seems to be about the establishment of benches of CAT in the Union territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh,” clarified Justice Reddy in an official release.
“A DO letter happens to be the communication between its author and the addressee and it is not made public particularly when it is between highly placed dignitaries. Since the news item was only about the establishment of the Benches and is a matter of relevance for the CAT, I contacted the minister to know about the subject. He informed me that he did not receive the letter either in the form of a hard copy or through e-mail,” he added.
Going by what is published in the media, it appears that the Chief Justice expressed concern over the ability of the tribunal to handle the service matters of the UT as and when transferred. Comparative statements were also furnished as regards the pendency in the entire tribunal on one hand and the pendency of service matters in the HC on the other hand. Many statements in the attachment of the news item on the website of “Bar & Bench” were indeed not called for and at any rate, were not a matter of concern for the HC.
{{/usCountry}}Going by what is published in the media, it appears that the Chief Justice expressed concern over the ability of the tribunal to handle the service matters of the UT as and when transferred. Comparative statements were also furnished as regards the pendency in the entire tribunal on one hand and the pendency of service matters in the HC on the other hand. Many statements in the attachment of the news item on the website of “Bar & Bench” were indeed not called for and at any rate, were not a matter of concern for the HC.
{{/usCountry}}