IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1509 of 2007. Date of Decision: 12th February, 2008... The Chandigarh Administration ....Petitioner through Mr. Kapil Kakkar,Advocate Versus Smt. Surinder Kaur ...Respondent through Mr. Balraj Sirdana, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh whereby an application moved by the petitioner – Chandigarh Administration for dismissing the civil suit being barred by Section 28 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been dismissed and it has been held that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction in the matter. The respondent-plaintiff (Smt. Surinder Kaur) has filed a suit for declaration that her husband – Sham Lal, Ex.-Helper in the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking “is presumed to have been dead having not been heard of for the last more than 7 years by those who would have heard him in natural relationship .... “. As a consequential relief, she has also sought declaration that she is entitled to retirement benefits on the premise as if her husband is dead. The petitioner -defendant moved an application for dismissal of the suit on the ground that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred to entertain a dispute regarding service matter of an employee who falls within the ambit of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The learned Civil Court, however, has dismissed the aforesaid application and rightly so, after holding that the main relief sought by the plaintiff is a declaration that her husband – Sham Lal is presumed to have been dead, having not been heard for a period of more than seven years. Such a declaration can essentially be granted by the Civil Court only. The other consequential relief, namely, family pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. would obviously depend upon the main relief. In other words, it is only if the respondent-plaintiff succeeds in seeking the main declaration that she can claim the other consequential reliefs. No exception can, thus, be made to the view formed by the learned Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the respondent has also impugned the termination of services of her husband. It is true that an ancillary declaration to that effect has also been sought by the respondent-plaintiff. It is, however, not disputed that the services of her husband were terminated on the ground of absence from duty. Even that relief is also consequential and ancillary to the main relief inasmuch as the validity of the termination of services of the respondent's husband on the ground of absence from duty is dependent upon the date/year of declaration of his presumed death, if so granted by the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the main declaration sought by the respondent-plaintiff regarding presumed death of her husband, is hopelessly time barred. Needless to say that all legal/factual objections shall be available to the petitioner to be taken before the learned Civil Court and the same shall be gone into by it, in accordance with law. With these observations and liberty, this revision petition is disposed of. February 12, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE