U. C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THE above mentioned decided writ petitions and special appeals have been bunched together as in all these cases applications for giving effect to the mandamus issued by this court have been prayed for. THE special appeals were decided on 12-3-1979 and a mandamus was issued relying on the said decision by another Division Bench of this court on 22-8-1984 in which one of us was a member (S. C. Mathur, J.). THE complaint of petitioners to all these cases is that the mandamus issued in these cases has not been complied with and the fixation or refixation of salary and the amount calculated is not in accordance with the directions issued by this court interpreting certain relevant rules. In these applications giving rise to these cases certain prayer for issuance of specific mandamus for payment of a particular amount for which direction against Union of India and others has been sought. In the counter affidavit filed by the railway administration details have been given indicating the amount to which the petitioners are entitled to according to which some of them are not entitled to any further amount than what has already been paid to them THE amount calculated by railway administration is much less than the amount claimed by these petitioners. THE proceedings were initiated by three persons who were employees of the railway administration initially belonging to the running cadre of the Northern Railway but later on they were shifted to the stationary cadre. THEy filed writ petition in the matter regarding fixation and payment of emoluments including allowances to which they were rightly entitled to. THEse writ petitions came up for hearing with certain other similar writ petitions filed later on. THE writ petitions were partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refix pay of these persons according to relevant rules and also to fix pay under Clause (2) of Rule 2027 and certain other directions were given. THE Union of India feeling dis-satisiied filed special appeal against that judgment. THEse special appeals came up for hearing along with seven other writ petitions in which similar questions were raised. THE special appeals were partly allowed by a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (U. C. Srivastava, J.) was a member. THE writ petitions heard with the special appeals too were allowed and the railway administration was directed to refix the pay of Sardar Husain and Ram Kumar Dubey for the period they held their officiating appointment in the stationary post according to the relevant rules. THEy were further directed to refix the salary in accordance with para 1 (b) (ii) of Railway Board's letter dated 1-7-1949 after taking into consideration that running allowance was part of pay during that period. In the said judgment following directions were given :- (a) Basic pay has to be construed in accordance with Rule 21-A of the Railway Establishment Act.... (b) fixation of pay in stationary cadre will be made according to the Old Indian Railway Establishment Manual which provides that where a person in the running post was officiating for a period exceeding 21 days then he should be fixed in the running post for the purposes of fixation of pay ; (c) Rules of fixation of pay are contained in paragraph 2017 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.
(2.) THE special leave petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed and the said judgment became final Three months time was granted to the railway administration to comply with the same but they prayed for further time which was granted As the petitioners were not given any relief, a contempt application was moved and a Chartered Accountant was appointed to calculate the salary of the concerned persons and to submit his report before the court. THE Chartered Accountant submitted his report. THE petitioners to the writ petition thereafter moved applications before this court in these cases in the month of September 1986 for reliefs mentioned above. THE special leave petitions filed by the Union of India against the judgment passed in the special appeals referred to above were dismissed, with the result that the said judgment became final. When these applications came up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the railway administration that under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which was subsequently amended in the year 1986, the petitioners remedy, if any, lies only before the Administrative Tribunal as it is fresh cause of action and this court is not competent to grant the prayer which has been prayed for by the petitioners in these cases. The special appeals were decided in the year 1979 and the applications for issuance of mandamus by these petitioners have been filed in the month of September 1986. According to the petitioners their writ petition filed in 1980 or one filed in 1986 in substance is for executing the orders passed by this court in special appeals referred to above. The applications moved subsequently in the decided special appeals or writ petition are also of the same nature and the same also gets support from the counter affidavit filed by the Railway Administration along with accounts. According to the petitioners it indicates that the order passed by this court has not been executed correctly and finally and refixation of emoluments and other benefits has not been done in accordance with the directions issued by this court. The case of the Railway Administration is that the plea of improper compliance and wrong calculation, misinterpretation of said rules is involved, as such it will be a new cause of action and the matter is covered by Administrative Tribunals Act and writ petition in the matter cannot be heard and grant of any relief in decided petition by this court will be without jurisdiction. The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 came into force with effect from 1-11-1985 vide Notification No. G.S.R. 764 (E) dated 28-9 85. It is not in dispute that the railway employees are also covered by the Administrative Tribunals Act. Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act deals with the powers and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunals which reads as under :- " 14 (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to : - (a) ............... (b) ............... (c) All service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation (or society or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment ". Section 14 thus embraces within its ambit all service matters pertaining to services referred therein. This clause is wide enough to embrace within its ambit matters connected with the benefits pertaining to the emoluments while in service or the pensionary benefits after retirement from service or the arrears of salary. The retirement benefits or the arrears of salary which are paid or payable whether the person is in service or has retired. Consequently the benefits regarding salary or wrong calculation of salary even after retirement is governed by this Section. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides as under :- " 28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court :-On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons appointed to any service or post (no court) except- (a) the Supreme Court ; or (b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force, shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters. " Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides as under :- " (1)............... (2) Every suit or other proceeding pending before a court or other authority immediately before the date with effect from which jurisdiction is conferred on a Tribunal in relation to any local or other authority or corporation (or society) 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 the said date, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal......" Thus after coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act not only the new cases are to be instituted before it but the pending cases or proceedings pending before any court other than Supreme Court of India are to be transferred to the Tribunal in case cause of action for the same is such that it can be entertained by the Administrative Tribunal. If it is a simple matter of execution of the order passed by the High Court which does not call for any interpretation and application of relevant rule, in that event the same could be treated to be an execution application. In execution application no. 1 of 1986 arising out of writ petition no. 2739 of 1981 against which judgement special leave petition too was dismissed, this bench has taken a view that the high Court is competent to execute an order passed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act and more particularly the powers of High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India after coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act were challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the leading case on the point viz. S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386 the Constitution Bench held :- " .........As the judicial review of the decisions of the Tribunal by the Supreme Court is left wholly unaffected and thus there is a forum where matters of importance and grave injustice can be brought for determination or rectification, exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court does not totally bar judicial review. It is possible to set up an alternative institution in place of the High Court for providing judicial review. In this view, barring of the jurisdiction of the High Court by the Act cannot be a valid ground of attack. " With reference to the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of J. B. Chopra v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 357 observed that the Administrative Tribunal being substitute of High Court, it had necessary jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate upon all disputes relating to service matters including the power to deal with all questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of such laws as offending Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. In these cases mandamus was issued by this court and the plea of the opposite parties is that they have fully complied with it. Whether compliance has been done faithfully or not as has been pleaded and contended on behalf of opposite parties and the rules have been rightly or wrongly applied and fixation done at various stages and in view of facts of every case, the extent of applicability of Rule 2027 of Railway Establishment Code, the stages at which running allowance is to be computed and its extent, the extent of dearness allowance not mentioned as such in the judgment of Special Appeal, though at best could be a case of improper or insufficient execution and not a case of no execution at all. The matter may be off shoot of earlier proceedings but it will be a case of fresh cause of action arising because of misinterpretation and misapplication of rules and thereby incorrectly executing the mandamus issued by this Court. This fresh cause of action arising out of service matters is cognizable by the Administrative Tribunal and this court is not competent to grant the relief which has been prayed for by the petitioners. No question of transfer of these proceedings to the Administrative Tribunal arises as the present proceedings have started in the year 1986 that is after 18 November 1985, as such the applications have got to be dismissed. All the applications are dismissed with the observations that it will be open for the petitioners to take back all certified copies and file the same before the Administrative Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.;