UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUKESH CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises from an order of the District Judge Karimaganj made on 20-7-90 rejecting the prayer for transferring the appeal pending before him to the Central Administrative Tribunal (Railway Tribunal).

(2.) The plaintiff instituted MS No. 10 of 1983 against the Union of India and others in the Court of the Assistant District Judge Karimganj for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,500.00 as his gratuity. The case of the plaintiff is that he was a railway employee and retired on 1-7-80. His gratuity had been sanctioned by the authority, but the defendants had refused to pay the same. The Assistant District Judge decreed the suit by a decree dated 5-3-86. Being aggrieved by the decree, the Union of India and others filed Money Appeal No. 3 of 1986 before the District Judge Karimganj. The appeal is pending before the District Judge after remand by the High Court under its order dated 4-10-90 made in Second Appeal No. 145 of 1989. After the remand, the Union of India filed an application for transferring the appeal to the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the subject in dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The District Judge rejected the prayer, as already stated, and fixed the case for hearing. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The question which arises for consideration is whether the subject matter of dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for short "the Act", came into force on and from 1-11-83. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Act provides, inter alia, that save as otherwise provided in the Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court under 136 of the Constitution) in relation to all "service matters" concerning a person (not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (1)) appointed to any civil service of the Union of any civil post under the Union, Cl. (c) is not relevant in the present case. The expression "service matter" is defined in S. 3(q) of the Act to include "remuneration (including allowances, pension) and other retirement benefits". The dispute is about the non-payment of gratuity for the reasons stated in the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that gratuity had been sanctioned after his retirement. Therefore, I am of that view that gratuity is retirement benefit pension under R. 2302(10) of the Railway Pension Rules, and as such, the dispute is within the meaning of "service matter". In such a situation, the subject matter in dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.