High Pendency Plagues Central Administrative Tribunals, Union Minister Jitendra Singh Takes Stock

Union Minister of State for the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Jitendra Singh has urged the heads of quasi-judicial bodies to streamline “avoidable appeals” from the high courts.

At the 10th All-India Conference of CAT held recently, the Minister also stressed the need to ensure that the tribunals fulfil their basic mandate – which is to reduce the backlog of service-related cases in higher courts.

He also urged the members of the judiciary to voluntarily come forward to take up assignments in the tribunal, “in the interest of administration of justice” and “in the service of the nation”.

85,445 Pending Cases

According to government data, 85,445 cases have been pending across various CAT Benches – out of which nearly 1,500 cases have been languishing for over 10 years now. About 4,000 cases related to pensions are also pending in the tribunals, officials said.

A recent report by the Parliament’s Department related-Standing Committee had attributed the high pendency to the “non-availability of a sufficient number of members”, among other reasons. A senior functionary from the personnel department said that the government plans to fill all the vacancies in the tribunals.

The CAT was established in 1985 under Article 323A of the Constitution to provide speedy and effective justice to government employees and pensioners, while also relieving high courts of the heavy burden of service-related litigation.

Role Of Technology In Judicial Processes

Meanwhile, highlighting the growing role of technology in the judicial process, the Union Minister had sought the clearance of cases in a time-bound manner, emphasising the need to adopt modernised case-management systems.

The Minister also spoke about AI-enabled case management systems to aid the judicial process, without compromising its independence. He suggested that the CAT could adopt performance benchmarking across its Benches, with parameters such as disposal rates, pendency reduction, the use of technology, and litigant satisfaction.

While the government can provide resources and technology, integrity and the sense of service remain the responsibility of those entrusted with the justice delivery system, he said.