IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 32 of 2004 Decided on: 29.04.2008 Union of India and others. Appellants Versus Nirja Batta Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgement of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8th September, 2003 passed in CWP No. 1916 of 1996 whereby he has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent (writ petitioner). It is not necessary to give the detailed facts of the case since the short question which arises for decision in the present appeal is whether the learned 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Single Judge had any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or not. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner was an employee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Subathu, District Solan, which is a part of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, which is a society registered under the Societies Registrations Act, 1860. The petitioner had claimed that she should be granted special compensatory (Remote Locality) allowance as is being allowed to other Central Government employees and employees of other Kendriya Vidyalayas. Undisputedly, this is a service matter falling within the ambit of Administrative Tribunal Act. It is also not disputed that notification was issued on 28/30th December, 1998 by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training under the Administrative Tribunals Act (Act in short) whereby Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was brought within the purview of the said Act. The learned Single Judge held that the notification had not been made retrospectively applicable and since the writ petition had been filed in the year 1996 the Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter. With due respect to the learned Single Judge, we are afraid that he totally overlooked the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Act which reads as follows:- “29. Transfer of pending cases.-(1) ….. (2) Every suit or other proceeding pending before a court or other authority immediately before the date with effect from which jurisdiction is conferred on a Tribunal in relation to any local or other authority or corporation (or society), 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 the said date, 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 pending as aforesaid before a High Court. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub- section “ date with effect from which jurisdiction is conferred on a Tribunal”, in relation to any local or other authority or corporation (or society), means the date with effect from which the provisions of sub section (3) of section 14 or, as the case may be, sub- section (3) of Section 15 are applied to such local or other authority or corporation (or society).” A bare perusal of sub-section 2 of Section 29 of the Act clearly shows that every proceeding pending before a Court immediately before the date from which jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal in relation to a Society, if it is a service matter falling within the meaning of the Administrative Tribunals Act, shall stand transferred to the concerned Tribunal. There can be no manner of doubt that if the petitioner had filed a claim on same grounds after the issuance of the notification the jurisdiction to entertain the same would lie only with the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The language of the sub section makes it abundantly clear that even in case of pending matters the same shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. The apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1125 has laid down in para 99 that even though the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted it being the part of the basic structure of the Constitution the employee concerned must first approach the Tribunal. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that he had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. In fact, we are of the opinion that the matter was bound to be transferred to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in view of the imperative language of Section 29(2) of the Act. In view of the above discussion the appeal is allowed. The judgement of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1916 of 1996 dated 8th September, 2003 is set- aside and the same is ordered to be transferred to the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal with a request that it may be taken up for hearing at Shimla. Since the writ petition was filed as far back in 1996 we would request the learned Tribunal to dispose of the matter as early as possible. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to sent the records of the case to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. Since we have decided the matter only on the ground of jurisdiction we are not commenting or saying anything on the merits of the case. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 29, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. ™