The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted under the Administrative Tribunals Act to determine a dispute between private individuals, specifically in cases where the dispute primarily concerns private parties and is not related to service benefits.

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This petition impugns an order dated 30th September, 2011 which dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4. The latter had filed a suit seeking following declarations :

“(a) pass a decree declaring the plaintiffs being the legally wedded wife and children of the deceased Satpal, are the legal heirs of deceased Satpal and as such entitled to family pension and to compassionate appointment, gratuity and insurance amount and other benefits; and

(b) pass such order and further relief as the Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

In that suit for declaration, Central Water Commission, Government of India, and the present petitioner were arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2, respectively. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 02.12.2011 whereby the Court proceeded to frame four issues. There is no order in the Court file staying the suit proceedings.

2. In that suit, the plaintiffs’ case was that her first husband Mr. Rajbir, who was employed with Central Water Commission as daily wager, had passed away on 26.10.1989. Three children i.e. plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 4 were born from that wedlock. After the demise of Rajbir, she married Satpal, who was the brother of her late husband. Satpal worked as a Chowkidar with Central Water Commission. He died on 10.06.2010. Plaintiff No. 1 Sudesh and her three children sought release of GPF, gratuity etc. from the employer– Central Water Commission. However, the Commission replied stating that in their records, the present petitioner Smt. Kiran (defendant No.2) was the nominee of Sh. Satpal. In view of the conflicting claims, all payments had been withheld by the Central Water Commission leading to the filing of the suit seeking the aforesaid declaration.

3. In an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the petitioner had sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that as per Section 2(q) [(sic) 3 (q)] of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and as per entry 8 of Schedule to Appendix-1 to the Central Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, all cases relating to grant of pension, family pension, and other retirement benefits, all matters relating to the condition of service are to be dealt with by the Tribunal. It was further contended that as per entry 13 of the Schedule to Appendix-1 to the Central Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, all cases relating to compassionate appointment/ appointment of dependants of government servants too are to be dealt with by the said Tribunal. The petitioner further contended that apropos the subject matter enumerated in Schedule to the aforesaid Appendix-1, there is a bar on the jurisdiction of all Courts other than the Supreme Court. Therefore, it was contended that insofar as the suit related to grant of pension, family pension and compassionate appointments, there would be a bar to the maintainability of the aforesaid suit.

4. The Trial Court was of the view that the issues before it were (i) whether the plaintiff No. 1 was the legally wedded wife of late Shri. Sat Pal and (ii) whether the plaintiffs No. 2 to 3 were their children. These two issues could not be considered as “service matters” as per Section 3 (q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was further of the view that the nature of cases detailed in the Schedule to the aforesaid Appendix-1 are restricted only to whether an employee of the Central or State Government is entitled to grant of pension or not. It was of the view that in the suit the dispute was between two women, both claiming to be the legally wedded wife of late Sh. Sat Pal, hence it could not be deemed to be a service matter.

5. Learned counsels for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because it relates to entitlement of grant of pension, family pension and employment on compassionate ground etc.