PIB TrackerDisposal runs at 93.16%, and only 8% of Jammu's cases go up on appeal
The Central Administrative Tribunal has disposed of 9.32 lakh of the 10.01 lakh cases filed since 1985. Its Jammu and Srinagar Benches absorbed a High Court docket, and the pendency figure does not match their own arithmetic.
What happened
- Union MoS Jitendra Singh inaugurated the new Office-cum-Court Complex of the CAT Jammu Bench at Bahu Plaza, Jammu.
- Nationally to 30 June 2026: 10,01,177 cases filed, 9,32,723 disposed - about 93.16%.
- Jammu and Srinagar: 20,984 transferred from the J&K High Court and 20,405 fresh, of which 18,392 and 13,952 were disposed of.
- Only about 8% of CAT Jammu Bench cases went in appeal to the High Court.
- The Minister said the ideal would be no room left to go for an appeal, and invited suggestions from the legal fraternity.
For Prelims
- Central Administrative Tribunal: established 1985 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for service matters of government employees.
- The three stated objects: speedy justice in service matters, affordable justice for government employees, and reduction of the burden on constitutional courts.
- The fee: a nominal Rs 50 for an Original Application; nil for Miscellaneous, Review and Contempt applications.
- National record: 10,01,177 filed, 9,32,723 disposed, 93.16% - so about 68,454 remain pending across all benches.
- Transferred jurisdiction: 20,984 cases moved from the J&K High Court to the Jammu and Srinagar Benches, of which 18,392 are disposed of.
- The appeal rate: about 8% of Jammu Bench cases go to the High Court - the number that tests whether tribunalisation actually relieves constitutional courts.
- Bench composition: a CAT Division Bench sits with Judicial and Administrative Members; Jammu now has two of each.
- The arithmetic gap: 41,389 received minus 32,344 disposed is 9,045, while the release states pendency at 9,452 - a difference of 407.
For UPSC: The best available numbers on whether administrative tribunals do what they were created to do. Use it on tribunalisation and judicial pendency, on access to justice where the Rs 50 fee is the concrete detail, and on Article 323A and the tribunal system, where the 8 per cent appeal rate is the evidence that the burden-reduction object is being met.
What it is NOT: The release gives no year-wise disposal figures, no average time to disposal, and no pendency breakdown by age of case, so speed is asserted rather than measured. It gives no sanctioned or working strength for CAT nationally, and no vacancy position for any bench. The national disposal rate is cumulative since 1985 and is not comparable with a current-year rate. The 8 per cent appeal figure carries no denominator, no period and no outcome data on those appeals, so whether the High Court upheld or reversed the Tribunal is unknown. And the stated pendency of 9,452 does not reconcile with the release's own figures, which subtract to 9,045.
For Mains
Syllabus: GS2.6 · GS2.9 · Linkage L2
Anchor
The Central Administrative Tribunal has taken 10,01,177 cases since 1985 and disposed of 9,32,723 of them. The more interesting number is smaller: only about 8 per cent of the Jammu Bench's cases go in appeal to the High Court, which is the measure of whether a tribunal relieves a constitutional court or merely adds a step before it.
Substantiation (data)
The Jammu and Srinagar Benches received 20,984 cases transferred from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and 20,405 filed fresh, and disposed of 18,392 and 13,952 respectively. A bench that clears 87.6 per cent of an inherited docket while handling an equal volume of new work is doing both jobs at once.
Position
Tribunalisation is usually defended on speed and attacked on independence. This release offers the third argument, which is access: an Original Application costs Rs 50, and miscellaneous, review and contempt applications cost nothing. For a government employee contesting a service matter, the price of entry is the difference between a remedy and a theoretical right.
Counterpoint
The Minister himself named the limit. A statutory right of challenge to the High Court means the tribunal is a first tier, not a final one, and he observed that repeated recourse to further litigation adds a layer and can delay the very speed the tribunal exists to deliver. Eight per cent is low; it is not zero.
Problematisation
Nothing here measures time. There is no average disposal interval, no age-wise pendency and no year-wise series, so a cumulative 93.16 per cent since 1985 cannot distinguish a fast tribunal from a slow one with four decades behind it. The release also reports pendency at 9,452 when its own figures subtract to 9,045.
Conclusion
The defensible claim is narrow and worth making precisely: on the evidence of one bench, the burden-reduction object of the Administrative Tribunals Act is being served, because nine in ten cases stop at the tribunal. Whether the speed object is served cannot be said from these figures at all.
Deploys into: Tribunalisation and Article 323A · Judicial pendency and access to justice · Administrative adjudication and service jurisprudence · Institutional capacity in Union Territories
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions · 2026-09-20 · PRID 2312709 · PIB source ↗