COLLECTOR Vs. DURVASULA SAMBA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 656 of 1979 is filed by the Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada, against two respondents, one Sri Durvasula Sambamurthy formerly Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samithi, now District Panchayat Officer, Nellore and the other District Munsif Magistrate, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. The prayer in this writ petition is that a Writ of prohibition may be issued restraining the second respondent District Munsif Magistrate, Pithapuram, from proceeding with the suit O.S. 53 of 1978 filed against the petitioner herein. The facts in the Writ Petition are as follows. The first respondent herein had filed O.S. 53 of 1978 before the District Munsif's Court, Pithapuram for the relief that the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Pithapuram may be pleased to declare that the plaintiff was born on 30-4-1925 and that therefore, that he should be superannuated only on 30-4-1980 and not on 30-4-1978 This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff, it appears on the basis of the proceedings issued by the present Writ Petitioner, Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, in the first week of March, 1978 in pursuance of G.O. Rt. No. 174 dated 17-2-1978. The plaintiff stated that he was born at Nagullapalle in Anakapalli on 30-4-1925 in his maternal uncle's house. He was admitted in the B.H. School, Chodavaram by his father and at the time of admission in order to take advantage of the then prevailing rules, the plaintiff's date of birth was put as 30-4-1923 instead of 30-4-1925. This wrong date of birth had been carried into the service register. Later on the plaintiff discovered his correct date of birth as noted in Jatakam prepared by Nistala Parvateesam, a veteran astrologer of Anaka- palli which was handed over to the plaintiff by his father's eldest brother T. Suryanarayana Murthy in December, 1977. Having thus come to know that his correct date of birth was 30-4-1923, the plaintiff filed O.S.No. 53 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Magistrate, Pithapuram, seeking for a declaration to the effect that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff was 30-4-1925 and not 30-4-1923, and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the State from relieving the plainitff from his service on the basis of his date of birth as entered in the service register and also to continue him in service till 30-4-1980. The plaint has been numbered and also an interim injunction has been issued restraining the State authorities from retiring the plaintiff and I am told, that that in- junction is now operating. The State authorities have filed their written statement and also an application praying that the District Munsif Court, Pithapuram, may be pleased to hear both the suit and the Interlocutory application together and accordingly I am told, that the suit stands posted to 31-3-1979.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed on the basis that the District Munsif Magistrate, Pithapuram has no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the suit which has been filed by the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the District Munsif Magistrate, Pithapuram once had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for a declaration regarding correct date of birth of a State Civil Servant. But, the contention of the present petitioner is that after the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order of 1975 had been issued by the President of India under Article 371 (d) of the Constitution of India, the Civil Court is deprived of its jurisdiction and no Civil Court will have today any jurisdiction to grant the type of relief which the plaintiff has prayed for. The argument of the petitioner in this case is that Section 6 of the aforesaid A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order bars the jurisdiction power and authority of all courts in the Country excepting that of the Supreme Court to deal with any condition of service of any person who is a member of the State Civil Service and consequently, the District Munsif's Court, Pithapuram is incompetent to entertain the suit. This is in a way admitted by Mr. Poornaiah but he contends that what is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court being only matters relating to service conditions, his client's suit being not one relating to a service condition, the District Munsifs Court Pithapuram, is competent to entertain O.S. 53/1978. The question therefore is, whether in entertaining the aforesaid O.S. 53/78 the District Munsif Magistrate, Pithapuram is exercising jurisdiction power or authority in relation to a condition of service of the plaintiff. Mr. Poornaiah, for the plaintiff contended that the declaration that his client was born not In the year 1923 but in the year 1925 does not touch or pertain to any condition of his client's service in the State Government and therefore, Section 6 of A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order 1975 does not bar the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Magistrate Pithapuram. I am afraid I cannot agree with this submission of Mr. Poornaiah. The meaning of the words 'conditions of service' is well settled. It has been decided in IN W.F. Province vs. Suraj Narain (1) (1949 P.C. 112) (reversing a judgment of F.C.) that those words are comprehensive enough as to include all conditions of service. This case was followed by our Court in Mohammad Ghouse vs. The State (2) (1954 ALT 173). In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sardul Singh (3) (1970 SLR 101) the same comprehensive meaning to "service conditions" is given by the Supreme Court.

(3.) The question when the plaintiff should be superannuated is certainly a question which depends upon the petitioner's date of birth as entered in the service register. It is not independent of the plaintiff's date of birth as entered in the service register. Now, the plaintiff seeks to alter that entry regarding his date of birth through an action in a Civil Court. This alteration if affected by the Civil Court, will have the direct effect of interfering with the right of the State to superannuate the plaintiff on the basis of his service record which forms the basis for the plaintiff's recruitment. Therefore, the Civil Court is certainly dealing with a subject or exercising power or jurisdiction or authority in relation to a matter of a condition of service. It is this which is forbidden to be done by any Court in this country except by the Supreme Court and the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that the entertainment of the suit by the Civil Court is beyond the competence of the District Munsif Magistrate Pithapuram. The whole proceedings are totally withoul jurisdiction I therefore think an appropriate writ should issue.