*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 09.05.2014

Pronounced on : 28.07.2014

+

CM(M) 352/2012 &CM APPLs. 5350/2012 and 5351/2012

KIRAN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. S.R. Jolly, Adv.

Versus

SUDESH & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Sumita Hazarika and Ms.

Ipsita Behuru, Advs. for R-1 to

4.

Mr. Asish Nischal, Adv. for R-

5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

%

MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

1. This petition impugns an order dated 30^th 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:

2014:DHC:3519

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,

2014:DHC:3519

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 p