Partly allowed

Union of India v. Dharmendra Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2014CR/232/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for rejection of a plaint. The suit concerned family pension and compassionate appointment, matters covered by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction and the matter should be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; suit pending before the trial court transferred to the concerned Central Administrative Tribunal. Revision petition allowed.

Union of India Vs Dharmendra Singh and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

SB CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.232/07. 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

SB CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.232/07.

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – PETITIONERS. VS DHARMANDER SINGH & ANR. – RESPONDENTS.

¶5

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12TH MARCH, 2014.

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶8

Mr. Kunal Rawat for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Tantia for the respondents.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

BY THE COURT :

¶11

The present revision petition under Section 115 of CPC has been filed by the petitioners-defendants challenging the order dated 23.10.07 passed by the A.C.J.M. No.4, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 12/07, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

¶12

The suit has been filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff against the petitioners-defendants seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to get the family pension from the respondents-defendants, after the death of Shri Kalyan Singh on 6.9.03, he being the adopted son of Shri Kalyan

¶13

SB CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.232/07. 2

¶14

Singh and that he is entitled to get the appointment on compassionate ground. It has been alleged in the plaint that the deceased Kalyan Singh was serving with the petitioner No.3defendant No.3 and before his death he had adopted the respondent-plaintiff by executing the adoption deed dated 14.8.03 which was also registered. In the said suit, the petitionersdefendants filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that in view of Section 29 read with Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act'), the civil court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit was liable to be transferred to the Tribunal under the said Act. The said application has been rejected by the Tribunal vide the impugned order, against which the present petition has been filed.

¶15

The learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Kunal Rawat for the petitioners drawing the attention of

¶16

SB CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.232/07. 3

¶17

the court to Section 29 of the said Act submitted that all the suits pending before the court in respect of the matters covered under Section 14 of the said Act were required to be transferred and civil court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to him the trial court has misconstrued the provisions of the said Act and wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners.

¶18

However, the learned counsel Mr. Ajay Tantia for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the dispute was not covered under the provisions contained in Section 14 of the said Act and therefore the trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners.

¶19

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court in the light of the provisions of the said Act, it appears that the Central Administrative Tribunal alone has the jurisdiction in relation to the matters enumerated under Section 14 of the said Act and

¶20

SB CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.232/07. 4

¶21

that as per Section 29 of the said Act, every suit or other proceeding pending before any court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under the Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal. In the instant case from the prayer clause of the plaint, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff had sought the declaration to the effect that he was entitled to get the family pension on the death of the deceased Kalyan Singh who was the employee of the petitioner No.3 and that he was entitled to the appointment on the compassionate ground. Such matter being service matter falling within the purview of Section 14 of the said Act, the suit was liable to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide the same under Section 29 of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the court is

¶22

SB CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.232/07. 5

¶23

of the opinion that the trial court has erred in dismissing the application of the petitioners and in not transferring the matter to the concerned Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶24

In that view of the matter the impugned order is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The suit being No. 12/07 pending before the trial court shall stand transferred to the concerned Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction.

¶25

MRG.

¶26

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. MRG/PS

Union of India v. Dharmendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Dharmendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar and Ors. Vs Bhanwar Lal and Ors.

M/S Sokhiya Engineering Company Vs C T O Circle-E Jaipur

M/S Sokhiya Engineering Company Vs C T O Circle-E Jaipur

Ganpat Lal and Ors. Vs Laxminarain and Ors.

Triveni Devi Vs Sunder Lal

Reliance Capital Ltd. Vs Addi District and Session Ors.