The Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, has held that where a person is initially recruited to a civilian post, namely Assistant, through the Staff Selection Commission, and the post is part of the General Central Civil Service and not a uniformed force position, the mere fact that such person is posted in the Indian Coast Guard or paid from the Coast Guard budget does not take the matter outside the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. A civilian post connected with defence remains amenable to CAT under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
After holding that it had jurisdiction and noting the urgency of the matter, the Tribunal directed the Registry to list the case for final hearing on July 10, 2026. The order, therefore, does not finally decide the validity of the transfer itself, but conclusively decides at this stage that CAT can hear the dispute and that the matter should be taken up promptly.
Also Read No Right to File Protest Petition Against Chargesheet Before Framing of Charges: MP High Court
A Single Member B. Anand rejected the respondents’ objection on jurisdiction and found their stand untenable. It noted that the applicant in the present case was not holding a uniformed post and had not been recruited by the Indian Coast Guard itself, but had been initially recruited by the Staff Selection Commission and later posted to work with the Coast Guard.
The Tribunal further observed that Section 14(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act expressly covers posts connected with defence that are filled by civilians. It held that the post of Assistant, to which the applicant had initially been recruited, was clearly a civilian post. The Tribunal also relied on the service classification material placed before it, to conclude that the post formed part of the general services category and was therefore civil in character. The CIC material cited before the Tribunal also supported the position that such civilian Coast Guard employees are governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules and fall within CAT jurisdiction.
Also Read Delhi HC Orders Crocs to Pay ₹24.63 Lakh Costs to Bata in Design Infringement Suit
Briefly, an original application was filed by C.P. Meena challenging the transfer order, under which he was transferred from ICGS Minicoy to Coast Guard Regional Headquarters (North East), Kolkata. The applicant argued that the matter needed urgent adjudication because he was likely to be relieved by July 10, 2026, failing which the application would become infructuous. The respondents, however, raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction because the applicant was serving in the Indian Coast Guard, which is a Central Armed Force under the Ministry of Defence and is not notified under Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The applicant relied on a set of authorities and statutory provisions to show that his case stood on a different footing. He argued that he had originally been recruited as an Assistant through the Staff Selection Commission, and not as uniformed Coast Guard personnel. He specifically relied on Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to contend that a post connected with defence but filled by a civilian fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The respondents opposed the plea by arguing that the applicant was serving in the Coast Guard and drawing salary from the Coast Guard budget, and that the source of funding showed the post was not civil in nature. They also argued that merely because the recruitment process was conducted by SSC, the post did not become a civilian post, just as defence candidates appearing through UPSC examinations do not become civilian appointees. Reliance was also placed on Rule 8 of the Coast Guard General Rules, 1986, to contend that the applicant was holding a non-civilian post and, therefore, CAT lacked jurisdiction.
