Understanding the Structure of Administrative Tribunals

When a government employee in India faces a grievance over promotion, transfer, or disciplinary action, where do they go? For decades, the answer was a long, exhausting journey through regular civil courts. That changed in 1985 with the creation of a specialized system designed for one purpose: delivering swift justice in service matters. Understanding how this system is built, who sits on it, and how its benches are spread across the country reveals a fascinating blend of judicial expertise and administrative experience.

The constitutional foundation
The Central Administrative Tribunal
Sanctioned strength and composition
The Chairman and appointment process
Benches of the CAT
Jurisdiction of the CAT
State Administrative Tribunals
States with SATs
Structure and appointments
Jurisdiction of SATs
Joint Administrative Tribunals
Procedure and powers that shape the structure
Simplified procedure
Appeals and the Chandra Kumar judgement
Why the structure looks the way it does

The constitutional foundation

The story of administrative tribunals begins not with the 1985 Act, but with the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, which inserted Part XIV-A into the Constitution. This part contains two articles that reshaped dispute resolution for government employees. Article 323A specifically empowers Parliament to establish administrative tribunals for service matters, while Article 323B covers tribunals for other subjects like taxation, elections, and land reforms.

Acting on this power, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Act set up a three-tier structure: a Central Administrative Tribunal for Union government employees, State Administrative Tribunals for state employees, and Joint Administrative Tribunals for two or more states that choose to share one.

The Central Administrative Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal, commonly called CAT, came into existence on 1 November 1985 with its Principal Bench in New Delhi. It is a specialist, quasi-judicial body built to handle service matters of central government employees. The Tribunal was set up under Article 323-A of the Constitution to adjudicate disputes concerning recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services under the Union.

Sanctioned strength and composition

The CAT is a multi-member body. According to the sanctioned strength, the Tribunal has 70 Members including the Chairman, split evenly between 35 Judicial and 35 Administrative Members. This dual-member design is the heart of the structure – it deliberately combines legal reasoning with administrative know-how so that both legal rigour and real-world governance experience shape every decision.

Every Bench of the CAT ordinarily consists of one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member sitting together. Judicial Members bring qualifications similar to those of High Court judges. Administrative Members are drawn from senior bureaucrats who have held posts at the level of Secretary or Additional Secretary to the Government of India for a prescribed period.

The Chairman and appointment process

The Chairman heads the entire CAT and must be, or must have been, a Judge of a High Court. The Chairman and every other Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal are appointed by the President of India after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. This consultative process is meant to insulate appointments from pure executive discretion and preserve judicial character.

The tenure of the Chairman is five years or until the age of 65, whichever comes earlier. The post of Vice-Chairman, which existed earlier, was removed by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006. Under the more recent Tribunal Rules, 2021, the Chairman can be drawn from either the Judicial or Administrative stream.

Benches of the CAT

While the Principal Bench sits in New Delhi, the Tribunal’s reach extends across the country through regional benches. There are 19 Benches and 19 Circuit Benches in the Central Administrative Tribunal all over India. Most regular benches are located at the principal seats of High Courts – cities like Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Allahabad, Chandigarh, Cuttack, Ernakulam, Guwahati, Jabalpur, Jodhpur, and Patna. Two benches, at Jaipur and Lucknow, sit outside High Court principal seats.

The 18th Bench was established for the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, inaugurated in June 2020. Circuit Benches allow the Tribunal to hold sittings at places where regular benches are not present, ensuring geographical accessibility for litigants who would otherwise travel long distances.

Jurisdiction of the CAT

The jurisdiction of the CAT extends to service matters of the All-India Services, Central Civil Services, civil posts under the Union, and civilian employees in defence services. The Government of India has notified over 215 organisations including Ministries and Departments under Section 14(2) to bring them within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Certain categories are explicitly excluded. Members of the armed forces, officers and staff of the Supreme Court, and the secretarial staff of Parliament and State Legislatures fall outside CAT’s reach. Military personnel are instead covered by the Armed Forces Tribunal established in 2007.

State Administrative Tribunals

State Administrative Tribunals, or SATs, form the second pillar of the structure. The Act does not automatically set up an SAT in every state. Instead, the Central Government establishes one only on receipt of a specific request from the State Government concerned. This opt-in design respects the federal principle while keeping the statutory framework uniform.

States with SATs

The uptake across states has been uneven. SATs were set up in nine states – Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala. Over the years, the SATs in Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh were abolished, although Himachal Pradesh later re-established its SAT, and Tamil Nadu has also sought to re-establish one. Haryana has similarly requested the creation of an SAT for its state.

Structure and appointments

A State Administrative Tribunal mirrors the CAT in its basic architecture. It has a Chairman and a mix of Judicial and Administrative Members, and each Bench again consists of one Judicial and one Administrative Member. The Chairman and other Members of an SAT are appointed by the President after consultation with the Governor of the concerned State. This appointment pathway – through the President rather than the State Government – helps maintain a uniform standard and a measure of independence from local political pressures.

The qualifications for the Chairman of an SAT broadly track those for the CAT: the person should be or have been a High Court judge, or should have held high-level administrative posts carrying a prescribed pay scale. Places at which the Principal Bench and other Benches of an SAT ordinarily sit are decided by the State Government concerned, in consultation with the Chairman.

Jurisdiction of SATs

SATs exercise original jurisdiction over all service matters of state government employees – recruitment, seniority, promotions, transfers, pay, disciplinary proceedings, and pensions. The purpose is the same as CAT’s: remove routine service disputes from overburdened regular courts and bring them before a specialised forum that can deliver quicker, less costly justice.

Joint Administrative Tribunals

The Act makes an interesting provision often overlooked: two or more states can agree to share a single tribunal. Under Section 4, two or more State Governments may enter into an agreement for a Joint Administrative Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction, powers, and authority over the participating states. The agreement specifies the name of the JAT, how the participating states will be associated with the selection of the Chairman and Members, the places where benches will sit, and how expenditure will be apportioned.

The Chairman and Members of a JAT are appointed by the President after consulting the Governors of all participating states. While no major JAT is currently in active operation, the provision offers smaller states a practical route to access this specialised adjudication without bearing the full cost of a dedicated tribunal.

Procedure and powers that shape the structure

The structure of these tribunals is not defined only by their members and geography – it is also shaped by how they are empowered to function. A few features are worth knowing.

Simplified procedure

Tribunals are guided by the principles of natural justice rather than bound by the procedure of the Civil Procedure Code, and they are empowered to frame their own rules. A government employee can even appear personally before the Tribunal without a lawyer, and the filing fee for an Original Application is kept at a nominal Rs. 50, with indigence waivers available. The Tribunal is also conferred with the same powers to punish for contempt as a High Court under Section 17 of the Act.

Appeals and the Chandra Kumar judgement

The original Act tried to make the CAT the sole forum for service disputes, with appeals going only to the Supreme Court. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court held that judicial review by High Courts is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and appeals against CAT orders now lie before the Division Bench of the concerned High Court. This ruling changed the way the tribunal structure operates in practice – CAT and SAT decisions can be challenged by writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 before the jurisdictional High Court.

Why the structure looks the way it does

If you step back and look at the complete structure – a Central Tribunal with a Principal Bench and nationwide regional benches, optional State Tribunals, the possibility of Joint Tribunals, a fixed judicial-plus-administrative bench composition, and presidential appointments with consultative safeguards – a clear design philosophy emerges.

The system is meant to be specialised, so that decisions come from people who understand both law and administration. It is meant to be accessible, with benches spread across the country and simple procedure. It is meant to be federal-friendly, giving states the choice to opt in. And it is meant to be independent, through presidential appointments and consultation with the judiciary. Whether these design goals are fully met in practice – given concerns over pendency, vacancies, and appointment delays – is a separate debate, but the structural intent is unmistakable.

What do you think? Given that only a few states have chosen to set up SATs – and some even abolished theirs – do you believe a State Administrative Tribunal should be made mandatory for every state, or should the current opt-in model continue? And after the Chandra Kumar judgement made CAT orders reviewable by High Courts, has the tribunal system truly reduced the burden on regular courts, or simply added another layer to the process?

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

The constitutional foundation 🔗

The Central Administrative Tribunal 🔗

Sanctioned strength and composition 🔗

The Chairman and appointment process 🔗

Benches of the CAT 🔗

Jurisdiction of the CAT 🔗

State Administrative Tribunals 🔗

States with SATs 🔗

Structure and appointments 🔗

Jurisdiction of SATs 🔗

Joint Administrative Tribunals 🔗

Procedure and powers that shape the structure 🔗

Simplified procedure 🔗

Appeals and the Chandra Kumar judgement 🔗

Why the structure looks the way it does 🔗