Who to Make a Respondent: Union of India, Department Heads and Private Parties

What the tribunal needs from the respondents in OA

The tribunal can only make an order that binds those who are before it. If you ask for a review DPC, the authority that convenes the DPC must be a respondent. If you ask for revised pension, the authority that sanctions it and the office that issues the PPO should be parties. A brilliant OA against the wrong office ends in an order nobody is obliged to carry out.

Form I asks for the name, designation and address of each respondent, with the address where notices are to be served. Rule 4(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 requires an extra paper book and an addressed envelope for each respondent. So the list of respondents is not a formality; it decides who gets served, who files a reply and who is bound by the outcome.

Think in three circles. The first is the government or body you work for. The second is the set of officers whose decisions you are attacking or whose action you need. The third, which people most often forget, is the set of private individuals whose rights will change if you win.

Why Union of India through the Secretary

Article 300 of the Constitution says the Government of India sues and is sued in the name of the Union of India. Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure follows the same idea for suits. The tribunal is not bound by the Code, but it follows this practice, and the department's legal cell expects it. So the first respondent in a central government case is the Union of India, represented through the officer at the top of the ministry or department that controls your post.

Union of India through the Secretary is not a magic phrase. It simply tells the registry where to send the notice and tells the ministry that the case concerns it. Choose the Secretary of the department that controls your cadre: the Secretary, Department of Posts for postal staff; the Secretary, Ministry of Defence for most defence civilians; the Secretary, Department of Revenue for income tax, customs and GST staff. Where a cadre is controlled by a board, such as the Railway Board or the CBIC, the board's chairman is often added.

If your grievance comes from a DoPT office memorandum or a DoPPW pension instruction applied to you, and you are challenging that instruction itself, the Union of India through the Secretary of DoPT or DoPPW should also be named. A challenge to a policy without the policy-making ministry before the bench is the kind of gap the government counsel will point out at the first hearing.

How respondents are commonly described, department by department

Necessary party and proper party: the difference in plain terms

A necessary party is someone without whom the tribunal cannot make an effective order at all. If you ask for a junior's promotion to be set aside, that junior is a necessary party; deciding against him without hearing him would break the basic rule of natural justice. An OA without a necessary party can be dismissed for that reason alone.

A proper party is someone whose presence helps the tribunal decide fully, though an order could be made without them. The pay and accounts office that will refix your pension is often a proper party: the main relief runs against the department, but having the accounts office on record avoids a later excuse that it was not bound.

The Supreme Court explained the distinction long ago in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue (1963), and service cases apply the same test. If relief is sought against someone, or if the order will directly affect someone's existing right, that person is necessary. If someone's presence only makes the order easier to carry out, that person is proper.

You will also see the label proforma respondent in cause titles. It marks a party against whom no relief is claimed but who is on record so that the order binds it, for instance a training institute that must re-issue a certificate, or a parent cadre that must note a change in seniority. Writing proforma beside such a party tells the bench, and that office, that it need not file a detailed reply unless it wishes to.

Department heads and the officers who signed

Officers are impleaded by designation, not by name. Write the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Agra Division, and not the officer's personal name. Officers change; designations do not. When a new officer takes charge, the respondent continues and so does the duty to comply.

Include the authority that passed the original order and the authority that decided your appeal or representation. If a revision or review was decided, include that authority too. Where an order says it is issued by order and in the name of the President, the real decision-maker may be a ministry; the respondent should be the Union of India through the Secretary of that ministry, plus the officer who signed for record purposes.

Your group classification matters here. For a Group C employee, the appointing and disciplinary authority is often a regional or divisional officer, so that officer is the natural respondent. For a Group A officer, the President is usually the appointing authority and the ministry acts in that name, and UPSC may have given advice that is under attack, in which case UPSC through its Secretary should be added.

For pension cases, think about who must act after a win. The head of office prepares the papers, the pay and accounts office authorises payment, and in many cases the Central Pension Accounting Office or the bank acts on what the PAO sends. The department and the PAO are usually enough; the bank is normally not a respondent before CAT, since it only carries out the authority it receives.

Private respondents: when other employees must be impleaded

Any promotion, seniority or selection dispute where your success means someone else's loss requires that person to be a party. If you claim seniority above five named colleagues, those five should be respondents. If you challenge the selection of a particular candidate, that candidate must be heard. This is not a technicality: tribunals and the Supreme Court have set aside orders made behind the backs of affected employees.

Where the number of affected people is large, you do not always need to implead every one. In Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. (decided by the Supreme Court in December 2019), where the challenge was to a select list of over two thousand names, impleading some candidates in a representative capacity was held enough because the attack was on the process, not on any individual's eligibility. The tribunal may also direct notice by publication where many people are affected.

The detailed rules for promotion and seniority cases, including which juniors to name and how to serve them, are covered in our guide on why affected juniors must be made parties. For seniority objections generally, see our page on challenging a seniority list.

When an officer must be named personally

If your case alleges that a particular officer acted out of malice or bias against you, the allegation must be made against that officer by name and the officer must be a party in a personal capacity. The courts have said repeatedly that allegations of mala fides cannot be decided against someone who was not given a chance to answer them. An allegation of malice against the department in general is usually treated as no allegation at all.

Think carefully before doing this. Naming an officer personally makes the case sharper and more personal, and it shifts the bench's attention from the illegality of the order to the character of the officer. Malice is hard to prove. Most service cases succeed on simpler grounds: wrong authority, no hearing, rules ignored, documents not supplied.

If you do allege malice, give specifics: dates, earlier complaints, remarks in writing, and a connection between the officer's hostility and the order. Our page on when the complainant is also the disciplinary authority deals with one common form of this problem.

Two checks that prevent a wrong memo of parties

• Advocate B.K. Singh starts with the signature block of the impugned order. Before the facts, he looks at who signed, in what capacity, whether the order says it is issued with the approval of a higher authority, and to whom copies were marked. The copy list at the bottom of a government order often names every office that will need to act, and that list becomes the first draft of the respondents.
• For any seniority or promotion case, he asks for the actual list that would change. Advocate B.K. Singh wants the seniority list or DPC panel in hand and marks the names who would move down or lose a promotion if the OA succeeds. Those names go into the memo of parties, with their current postings, before the OA is filed rather than after an objection.

Autonomous bodies, deputation and other special cases

If you work for a society or body notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, such as KVS, NVS, CSIR or ICAR, it has its own legal identity. The respondent is the body itself through its head, not the Union of India. The administrative ministry may be added where its approval or policy is under challenge. To find out whether your body is notified at all, see our guide on checking a Section 14(2) notification.

Employees on deputation often have two employers: the lending department that holds their lien and the borrowing organisation where they work. If the grievance is about premature repatriation, deputation allowance or an APAR written by the borrowing office, both may need to be respondents. Our guide on which department to sue while on deputation works through the common situations.

Candidates challenging a recruitment decision should usually implead the recruiting body (UPSC, SSC, RRB, or the department's own board) and the user department that will appoint. Where your selection would displace another selected candidate, that candidate is a necessary party too.

Building the memo of parties, step by step

Do this before you finalise the relief clause, because every relief must run against someone on the list.

1. Read the impugned order closely

   Note who signed it, on whose behalf, and to whom copies were sent. Do the same for the appellate or rejection order.

2. Identify the controlling ministry or body

   Decide whether your employer is the Union of India or a body with its own identity. Find the correct designation of its head.

3. List the officers who must act

   For each relief, ask who will carry it out: the DPC convening authority, the pension sanctioning authority, the pay and accounts office, the recruitment board. Add them by designation.

4. List those whose rights will change

   Check seniority lists, promotion orders and select lists for people who would lose if you win. Get their names, designations and current postings.

5. Decide on any personal impleadment

   Only if you are alleging malice by a specific officer, and only if you can back it with specifics.

6. Write full addresses for service

   Use official addresses for government respondents and the current posting address for private respondents. Rule 11 allows service through the head of office for serving employees.

7. Order the list sensibly

   Put the Union of India or the body first, then senior officers, then local officers, then private respondents. Number them consecutively.

How the OA is assembled and filed after this is set out on our page on preparing and filing an OA under Section 19.

Papers you need to describe each respondent correctly

Where you file does not depend on where the respondents sit

People often assume that because the Secretary sits at Krishi Bhawan or Dak Bhawan, the case must be filed in Delhi. It need not. Rule 6 of the Procedure Rules looks at you, not at them: your present place of posting, or the place where the order was made or took effect, and once you have retired or been removed, the place where you now ordinarily live as an alternative. An employee posted in Guwahati whose transfer order came from Delhi can file at the Guwahati Bench, because the order operates on him there.

Respondents can be anywhere in India. Notice reaches them by registered post, by hand, or, for serving government employees, through the head of their office under Rule 11. Under Rule 11(4), the tribunal can serve government respondents through the standing counsel, which is how most central government notices are handled in practice.

If the department wants the case heard elsewhere, it may apply under Section 25 for transfer to another bench. That decision belongs to the Chairman and turns on convenience and justice, not on where the respondents' offices are. Our page on bench transfer under Section 25 explains when this is asked for.

Time and cost linked to the respondents

Fixing a wrong or missing respondent after filing

Mistakes in the memo of parties can usually be put right, and impleading respondents after filing is routine when it is done early. If the department objects that a necessary party is missing, move an application to implead that party, with an amended memo of parties and extra sets. Tribunals generally allow this if it is done promptly, though the case may be adjourned while the new party is served.

A party wrongly added, for example an officer named personally without any allegation against him, can be deleted on application. The tribunal can also strike out or add parties on its own. What it will not do is decide against a necessary party who was never brought before it.

Leaving the correction too late is the real danger. If the department raises non-joinder in its reply and you do nothing until the final hearing, the bench may dismiss the OA on that ground, leaving you to start again, with limitation now a problem. Act within weeks of the objection, not months. Where a new order has been passed against you meanwhile, see our guide on amending the OA.

Retirees, families and candidates: who goes on the list

A retired employee usually names the Union of India through the Secretary of the last ministry, the head of the office from which he retired, and the pay and accounts office that issued the PPO. If the dispute arose in a previous office (for example, an old pay fixation error in a different division), add that office too, because its records will be needed.

A widow or child claiming family pension should name the same respondents, and if another family member has a competing claim (a second wife, a dependent parent, a sibling), that person is a necessary party. The tribunal cannot decide between two claimants if only one is before it.

Candidates in a recruitment dispute name the recruiting body, the user ministry, and any selected candidate whose seat they claim. Group A officers in cadre allocation disputes often need to implead the officer allotted the cadre they wanted, as well as DoPT and the state government concerned.

Before you settle the list

Lay out your relief clause and, against each relief, write the respondent who must carry it out. Then lay out the seniority list, select list or panel and mark anyone who would be hurt by your win. Anyone on either list who is not in the memo of parties should be added or consciously left out with a reason.

Check the designations against a recent office order, not one from five years ago. Check that private respondents' postings are current, because notices sent to an old address delay the case. The memo of parties is one part of a larger set of filing papers, all listed on our page on OA filing before the tribunal.

If you would like your memo of parties checked against your orders and seniority papers, or want to know about recent rulings on impleading affected employees, contact Advocate B.K. Singh for advice on your OA.