ORDER
Venkatachala, J.
1. Does a pending suit in a Court in the State of Karnataka, wherein the claims are that the plaintiff is a civil servant of the Government of Karnataka and that the Karnataka Government should be directed to retire and relieve the plaintiff from its service and give him the benefits of his Government service, stand transferred under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Central Act’) on the establishment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) under that Act, is a question which arises for decision in this civil revision petition.
2. The respondent here was the plaintiff in a suit, O.S. No. 71/85, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Harihar. The plaintiff claimed in that suit a declaration that he was a servant of the Government of Karnataka and that he should be retired by the Karnataka Government from its service and given the benefits of his service. The plaintiff’s claim for the declaration that he was a servant of the Government of Karnataka is based on the allegation in the plaint that he was recruited and appointed as a V.G.D. Inspector on 14-10-1954 and that he had become a civil servant in the Revenue Department of the Government of Mysore and he had served as such even in the present Government of Karnataka, the successor Government. His further claim for a direction to the Karnataka Government to retire him from its service and give him the benefits of his Government service, is based on the allegation in the plaint that though he attained the age of superannuation while in the service of the Karnataka Government in the year 1970, he has not been retired and relieved from the Government service and he has not been given the service benefits despite several demands made in this regard from time to time.
3. The cause of action for the suit according to the plaint averment arose “on 14-10-1954 when the plaintiff was appointed as V.G.D. Inspector and on the date when plaintiff reached the age of superannuation and subsequently on 31-3-1982 when the Writ Petition No. 6821/78 was disposed by his Lordship of High Court of Karnataka and subsequently on 10-5-1983 when a legal notice was got issued by the plaintiff and subsequently.”
4. The claims in the said suit of the plaintiff were resisted by the petitioners here (defendants in the suit) by filing a written statement raising several pleas by way of defence. On the basis of the pleadings, the issues settled were –
“(1) Whether plaintiff is a Civil servant of the State Government of Karnataka?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and other Rules applicable to Government Servants of Karnataka and the benefits applicable to them?
(3) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
(4) Whether suit is barred by time?
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration sought?
(6) To what reliefs parties are entitled?
(7) What decree or order?
5. While the said suit was pending trial, the Tribunal came to be established by a notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Central Act. Thereafter, the petitioners here filed an application in the suit seeking transfer of the suit to the Tribunal pleading, inter alia, that the suit had stood transferred to the Tribunal under Section 29 of the Central Act. The Court, which heard that application, by its order dated 20-3-1987, rejected it holding, inter alia, that the subject matter of the suit does not fall within the ambit of Section 15 of the Central Act. It is the validity of this order which has been questioned in this revision petition filed on behalf of the State Government.
6. Sri V.G. Sabhahit, learned High Court Government Pleader, submitted that the order under revision is unsustainable, in that, it is made ignoring the amplitude of Section 15 of the Central Act. It was his submission that the first claim in the pending suit of the respondent-plaintiff since requires consideration as to whether he was recruited to the civil service of the State Government and to a civil post of the State, the same falls within the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act. It was his further submission that the second claim in the suit since requires consideration as to whether a direction could be given to the State Government in the matter of giving service benefits to the plaintiff as a Government servant, the same falls within the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act. It was also his submission that when the claims in the suit come within the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act, the suit itself stands transferred to the Tribunal by operation of Section 29 of the Central Act.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by Smt. Alka Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent (plaintiff in the suit), that though the second claim relating to the direction to be given to the State Government for giving the benefits of plaintiff’s Government service to him, may fall for consideration by the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Central Act, the first claim relating to the declaration that the plaintiff was a State Government servant cannot be a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in that, the Tribunal cannot decide the question relating to the status of he plaintiff that he was a Government servant.
8. In the light of the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing on either side, what requires to be considered is whether the claims made in the suit fall within the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act and if so, the suit stands transferred to the Tribunal under Section 29 of the Act.
9. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act, which refers to jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals, in so far as it is material, reads:
“(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution) in relation to-
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State;
(b) all service matters concerning a person……………..appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State…….
(c) …………………………………………………………………….”
10. The plaintiff’s first claim in the suit is that the Court shall declare him to be a servant of the Government of Karnataka. In other words, his claim is that the Court should recognise his status as a servant of the Government of Karnataka and make a declaration accordingly. That claim, as pointed out earlier, is based on the allegation in the plaint that he was recruited and appointed as a V.G.D. Inspector on 14-10-1954 and that he had become a civil servant in the Revenue Department of the then Government of Mysore and he had served as such even in the present Government of Karnataka, the successor Government. The said claim of the plaintiff in the suit has to depend on the decision of the Court whether he was recruited and appointed as a V.G.D. Inspector, a civil post in the then Government of Mysore, the predecessor of the Government of Karnataka. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act, excerpted above, makes it clear that all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable. by all Courts (except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution) in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State, shall be exercised by the Tribunal from the appointed date. From this it follows that the first claim of the plaintiff concerning his status as a Government servant, which has to be decided by finding out whether he was properly recruited to a civil post and appointed therein, is a matter which falls squarely within the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal from the appointed date.
11. The plaintiff’s second claim in the suit relates to the benefits of his service in the civil post of the State. After the appointed date, this matter, as seen from Clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act, falls within the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal from the appointed date, as rightly conceded to by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
12. The next question is as to what should happen to the suit, in which the claims which could be decided by the Tribunal after the appointed date by virtue of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act are pending in a suit. The answer to this question is found in Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Central Act dealing with transfer of pending cases. That sub-section reads:
“(1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any Court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal as aforesaid before a High Court or the Supreme Court.”
If the cause of action for the claims made by the plaintiff in the suit had arisen after the establishment of the Tribunal under the Act, the suit in question could have been necessarily filed before the Tribunal in view of the operation of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Central Act. If such a suit was pending before a Court other than the High Court or the Supreme Court, in appeal, the same shall stand transferred to the Tribunal on the date of its establishment under the Act by virtue of the operation of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Central Act. Hence, it follows that the suit in question has stood transferred to the Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Central Act. When a suit has stood so transferred from a Court under Subsection (1) of Section 29, the Court shall, as soon as may be, after such transfer, forward the records of such suit to the Tribunal for being dealt with by the latter, as provided for under Sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Central Act.
13. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order under revision is set aside and the Court below is directed to forward the records of the suit to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for being further dealt with.