R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER, who is a Railway employee, filed a suit in the civil court for declaration that he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Chargeman Group-A and for mandatory injunction directing respondents to consider his promotion to the aforesaid post. Notice of the suit was served on the respondent but they did not put in appearance before the civil court; On 31-10-85 civil court decreed exparte the suit of the petitioner.
(2.) THE Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force an 1-11-85. After the enforcement of the Act, the petitioner applied for execution of the decree and made representation on 3-2-86 before respondents for complying with the decree but inspite of the aforesaid representation and reminder no action was taken. THE respondents however, on 31-5-86 made an application under Order IX rule 13 of CPC before the civil court for setting aside exparte decree. This application was allowed on 3-2-88 and exparte decree was set aside by the civil court. Petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order of the civil court. THE revisional court vide its order dated 27-5-88 dismissed the revision on the ground that after the enforcement of the Act, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in connection with the service matter of the Central Government employee. Although on merit, the revisional court had held that the order dated 3-2-88 setting aside exparte decree passed by the trial court is absolutely without jurisdiction. Against the aforesaid two orders dated 3-2-88 and 27-5-88, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent at some length and this writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that,- (i) after the enforcement of the Act on 1-11-85, civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the respondent for setting aside the exparte decree and order dated 3-2-88 setting aside exparte decree is, as such, without jurisdiction; and (ii) the revisional court was not justified in rejecting the revision of the petitioner because in the revision only the order dated 3-2-88 passed by the trial court was challenged and it did not relate to any service matters and revisional court had full jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 3-2-88 passed by the trial court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has on the other hand argued that the trial court was fully justified to set aside exparte decree and the revisional court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision in view of sections 14, 19, 28 and 29 of the Act. Section 28 lays down that on and from the date from which any jurisdiction, power and authority becomes exercisable under the Act by the Tribunal in relation to recruitment and service matter no court excepting the Supreme Court and Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court will have jurisdiction to exercise any power or authortty in relation to the aforesaid matters.;