Supreme Court Extends Services Of Four Retiring CESTAT Members

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that the four judicial members of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, who are due to retire this year, will remain in service till it decides pleas challenging provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

It termed the superannuation of P Dinesha, Ajay Sharma, Rachna Gupta and Suvendu Kumar Pati 'fully unjust'.

The four judicial members of CESTAT originally hailed from the district judiciary. They joined the tribunal under the old law and as per the term of appointment, they were to retire at the age of 62 years.

However, under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the term of a judicial member has been fixed for four years and this has led to a situation where their services will lapse on April 18, May 1, 3 and 9, respectively.

"In view of the ... circumstances, we are of the considered view that it will be fully unjust to allow the tenure of the four judicial officers to lapse between April 18 and May 9. Though, some of them may have applied for selection in pursuance of the limited vacancy circular, this cannot deprive them of the right that they are entitled to continue until the age of 62 years particularly in view of the order of this court dated Aug. 21, 2018," the bench ordered.

"We accordingly direct the four judicial officers... shall remain in service pending the final disposal of the writ petition (of Madras Bar Association)," the bench said, adding that these judicial members cannot be "left in lurch".

The apex court also listed the plea of the Madras Bar Association, challenging several provisions of the 2021 Tribunals Reforms Act, for July 11 and asked the counsels concerned to file their written submissions for the final disposal on the next date of hearing.

At the outset of the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the judicial members, said that two of these officers were district judges and left their job to join the CESTAT.

"When they were appointed in 2018, their tenure was to be five years or retirement at the age of 62 years whichever is earlier," he said, adding that the now their premature retirement will be "completely illegal and violative of earlier judgments."

Another Senior Advocate, Arvind Datar, who has been appearing in the case, said that what was happening was "unfortunate" as the government brought back the same provisions in the new law which were earlier set aside by the top court.

The bench found force in the submissions and said the selection of the four CESTAT members was governed by the 2016 rules under the parent statute and, hence, they will be allowed to continue in the service till the main case is decided.

The main petition challenged the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 to the extent it amends sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act, 2017.

Sections 184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017 give the central government rule-making power in relation to the mode of appointment, terms of service, allowances of members of various tribunals.