The central legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in the State of West Bengal and the nullity of orders passed without the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

ORDER :

H.K. Sema, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal and others questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the High Court. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of the present appeal.

3. Suffice it to say that the respondent herein was working as Medical Officer in the Health Services in Pathology Department. It is stated that he was found absent from 31-1-1975 to May 1993. It is, however, contended by Mr. Ganguli that despite repeated requests, he was not allowed to join in the post and, therefore, wilful absenting from duty was not attributable to him.

4. Be that as it may, in the interregnum he was superannuated. Before the respondent was superannuated, he filed Title Suit No. 85 of 1990 on 1-8-1990 which was decreed by the trial court on 10-12-1992 holding that the respondent will be entitled to decree of recovery of Rs. 6546.55p. It was further decreed that the plaintiff will also be entitled to recover so much of the amount which would be admissible to be made under the Rules. It appears that pursuant to the decree he filed execution before the executing court. Before the executing court, the respondent filed claim of Rs. 5,41,112.15p. which was objected to by the appellant that the claim put forth by the respondent, was not in the term of the decree. The objection was rejected by the executing court. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

5. One of the grounds taken in the Article 227 petition before the High Court was that in view of the provision of Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short "the Act") and the rules framed thereunder, the District Judge had failed to notice that the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. In other words, it was contended that the appellate decree being passed without jurisdiction, is a nullity.

6. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that the Act has been brought in the State of West Bengal by Notification dated 21-12-1994. Section 29 of the Act provides that every suit or other proceeding pending before any court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal. It is, however, contended by Mr. A.K. Ganguli that although the ground was taken in the petition before the High Court but it was not urged by the appellant at the time of arguments. In this connection he has taken us to the entire order of the High Court in which no decision has been rendered in this regard nor any argument has been recorded.

7. Be that as it may, since the Act has been enforced in the State of West Bengal and is still in force, any order passed by any authority will be a nullity in which the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide such cases. We are of the view that in the fitness of things, the order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Administrative Tribunals, Calcutta to decide afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, Title Appeal No. 44 of 1993 shall stand revived and the suit is transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is open to the parties to urge any contention as available to them before the Tribunal. As the matter is pending from 1993, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal after hearing both the parties, within a period of three months from today.

8. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is allowed. No costs.

Appeal allowed.