# Smt. Indrawati Singh v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-12-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21559 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra, Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-indrawati-singh-v-union-of-india-and-others-41798
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Act, 2005-appointment of Rojgar SewakClause 4 of G.O. 25.08.2010-requiring
fresh Selection of those who have
completed
3
years-although
initial
appointment
for
one
year-extended
subject to satisfactory work-the person
who initially appointed ofter facing
selection-having experience-can not be
compelled to face fresh selection-to this
extent G.O. Of 25.8.10 set a side.

Held: Para 28

It is, therefore, not possible, in view of
the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme
Court to uphold the policy of the
Government
contained
in
the
Government Order dated 25th August,
2010
regarding
holding
of
fresh

## Text

1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
petitioner as arrears of land revenue in
pursuance of the recovery certificate dated
21.06.2010 issued by the respondent no.3
and recovery citation dated 06.09.2010
issued by the respondent no.2, copies
whereof have been filed herewith as
Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively."

7. In the circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21559 of 2002

Smt. Indrawati Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Surya Narayan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
Sri Dev Shankar Shukla

Arm Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Section34-Petition relating to grievance of
Service matter-Cause of action-certainly
falls within jurisdiction of Tribunal-Writ
Petition stood transferred before the
tribunal-under section 34 of the Act.

Held: Para 6

In view of this, it has been laid down
that the Writ Petitions pending before
this Court, wherein, the cause of action
is
such
as
would
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Tribunal
after
enforcement
of
the
Armed
Forces
Tribunal
Act,
2007,
would
stand
transferred
to
the
Tribunal
for
adjudication in view of Section 34 of the
said Act.
Case law discussed:
2010 (4) ADJ 251 (DB), Special Appeal
Defective No. 218 of 2006

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. Case called out in the revised list.

2. None is present for the petitioner.

Sri Dev Shankar Shukla, learned
counsel for the respondents is present.

3. The present Writ Petition has
been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia,
praying
for
payment
of
suitable
compensation as well as for Special
Family Pension and Children Allowance
according to the relevant Rules with effect
from the date of desertion order dated 1612-1988, and further for quashing the
dismissal order dated 28-04-1992 in
respect of the husband of the petitioner,
namely, Nand Kishore Singh, who was
serving in Armoured Corps and was
posted in 43 Arm Regiment C/o 56 APO.

4. Thus, the subject matter of the
Writ Petition pertains to service matter in
respect of the husband of the petitioner
who was a member of the Armed Forces
covered by the Army Act, 1950.

5. In Dev Saran Mishra Vs. Union
of India and others, 2010 (3) A.D.J. 593
(paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27), a
learned Single Judge of this Court has
considered in detail the provisions of the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 in the
light of various judicial decisions, and has
held that in case the cause of action
involved in a Writ Petition is such as falls
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
after enforcement of the Armed Forces
3 All] Shiv Manorath Shukla and others V. State of U.P. and others
1347
Tribunal Act, 2007, such cause of action
has to be adjudicated upon in the first
instance by the Tribunal. It is only after
the decision of the Tribunal, that the
matter would come to the High Court
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India.

6. In view of this, it has been laid
down that the Writ Petitions pending
before this Court, wherein, the cause of
action is such as would fall within the
jurisdiction
of
the
Tribunal
after
enforcement
of
the
Armed
Forces
Tribunal
Act,
2007,
would
stand
transferred
to
the
Tribunal
for
adjudication in view of Section 34 of the
said Act.

7. The above decision of the learned
Single Judge has been followed by the
Division Benches of this Court in the
following decisions :

(A) Order dated 22-03-2010 passed
in Civil Misc. Writ No. 15363 of 2007
[(Late) Brig. (Retd.) Gaj Raj Singh
Siwach & others Vs. Union of India &
others], since reported in 2010 (4) ADJ
251 (DB).

(B) Order dated 28-10-2010 passed
in Special Appeal Defective No. 218 of
2006 [Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Union of
India & another].

8. The cause of action in the present
case, as noted above, is evidently such as
falls within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal after enforcement of the Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

9. Hence, in view of the above
decisions, it is apparent that the present
Writ Petition is to be transferred to the
Tribunal under Section 34 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

10. We direct accordingly.

The Registry is directed to take
appropriate steps in this regard.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56644 of 2010

Shiv Manorath Shukla and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Vijendra Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Suman Sirohi (S.C.)
C.S.C.

National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act, 2005-appointment of Rojgar SewakClause 4 of G.O. 25.08.2010-requiring
fresh Selection of those who have
completed
3
years-although
initial
appointment
for
one
year-extended
subject to satisfactory work-the person
who initially appointed ofter facing
selection-having experience-can not be
compelled to face fresh selection-to this
extent G.O. Of 25.8.10 set a side.

Held: Para 28

It is, therefore, not possible, in view of
the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme
Court to uphold the policy of the
Government
contained
in
the
Government Order dated 25th August,
2010
regarding
holding
of
fresh