VIJAY SINGH JADON Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this matter, we had passed an interim order on 5th September 1988, since reported in 1988 MPLJ 640. By that order, we decided the general question as to whether all petitions concerning "service matters" filed in this Court at this Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution would stand automatically "transferred" to the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, for short, the 'tribunal', established on and from 2nd August 1988. We took the view that Benches of the said Tribunal not being established at the existing "seats" of this Court such as this Bench, there would be no automatic transfer of those cases to the "principal seat" of the Tribunal established at Jabalpur under State Government Notification dated 28th August 1988.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition as also other petitions involving "service matters" have been retained at this Bench's Registry, to be dealt with in accordance with the directions made by us in the order passed on 5th September 1988. In this petition, as also in several other petitions, another question of jurisdiction remained to be determined which we are deciding today. It is contended that not all types of "service matters" and cases of not all classes of petitioners are to be dealt with by the Tribunal, Only in those cases in which the Tribunal has been expressly vested with jurisdiction under Sections 15 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for short, the 'act', this Court has no jurisdiction with respect to pending cases as also cases instituted after establishment of the Tribunal. It is further contended that Section 28 of the Act does not contemplate total exclusion thereunder of this Court's jurisdiction with respect to "service matters'", under Article 226 of the Constitution, as all classes of persons in the employment of the State are not required to go to the Tribunal.

(3.) IN this petition, as also in M. P. Nos. 1266 and 1300 of 1988, listed for analogous hearing on the preliminary question, the petitioners had been employed on daily wages. We would, therefore, confine our decision in this matter to the case of petitioners only of that class. This decision shall apply to all other pending petitions of the same type though those have not been listed for analogous hearing with these three matters and indeed, also to all future cases, to be instituted in this Court by the petitioners of same class.