C.R.No.6071 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6071 of 2009 Date of Order: 13.10.2011 Gram Sudhar Sabha and others .....Petitioners Vs. Ram Kishan Sharma and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana for respondent Nos.2 & 3. JASWANT SINGH, J Petitioner No.1-Gram Sudhar Sabha is a registered society (for short “the Society”), which has established Mahadev Desai Senior Secondary School, Lachman Bagh, Sector 16-A, Faridabad (for short “the School”). Petitioner No.2 is the Chairman of the Managing Committee and petitioner No.3 is a Principal of the School. Respondent No.1 Ram Kishan Sharma was employed as a Accounts Clerk in the School since the year 1988. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the state authorities under the Haryana Aided School Security of Service Act, 1973 and Haryana School Education Act, 1995 (for short “the 1995 Act”) regulating the conditions of service of the employees of the School, which is an aided one. C.R.No.6071 of 2009 #2# Petitioners have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby their objections of jurisdiction have been dismissed vide order dated 20.8.2009 and further the case listed for calculation and making of the payment towards satisfaction of the decree dated 2.9.2000. In brief the facts are that respondent No.1-Ram Kishan Sharma was appointed as a Accounts Clerk in the School on 10.3.1988. He was allegedly not permitted to work on the post and mark the presence w.e.f 15.5.1992 and subsequently vide order dated 25.6.1992, he was placed under suspension. The action of suspending him was purportedly on account of embezzlement of a sum of Rs.53000/- of the School for which a criminal case was also registered against him. Ram Kishan Sharma-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of the suspension order dated 25.6.1992 to be illegal and without jurisdiction with consequential relief of payment of all emolument, salary perks and another dues in terms of his appointment. Defendant No.1-Society filed its written statement asserting that the plaintiff has embezzled the amount of Rs.53000/- and continuously absented from duty from 25.5.1992 despite publication in the Newspapers. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Plaintiff led his evidence whereas the defendants did not examine even a single witness and were proceeded ex parte on 1.5.2000. It appears that no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated in pursuance of the suspension order, which was solely based on the registration of the criminal case. Since the plaintiff was honourably acquitted in the criminal case, it was found that the matter was squarely C.R.No.6071 of 2009 #3# covered by the judgment of this Court in Ravinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others 1997 (1) PLR 555. Consequently, the suspension order dated 25.6.1992 was set aside and the suit was accordingly decreed alongwith costs vide decree dated 2.9.2000 and the defendants were directed to pay all the emoluments, salary perks and other dues admissible and payable to the plaintiff in terms of the employment. It is apposite to mention here that the petitioner-defendants neither filed any appeal nor any application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order and decree dated 2.9.2000, however, the state authorities did file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order and decree, which was admittedly dismissed. It is also not in dispute that after passing of the decree dated 2.9.2000, the plaintiff on 7.11.2000 submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the petitioner-JDs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Executing Court has illegally dismissed the objections of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner-JDs vide the impugned order dated 20.8.2009. It is urged that in view of Section 22 of 1995 Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of the suspension order was specifically barred and thus the decree was a nullity and hence could not be executed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-decree holder submits that the provisions of 1995 Act except Sections 8 and 24 were enforced w.e.f 20.7.2001 by issuance of the Government Notification No.S.O.97/H.A 12/1999/S.I/2001 dt 20.7.2001 pub. In Hr Govt Gaz I.S Pt III, dated 20.7.2001, p 598) and thus not in force on date of decree i.e C.R.No.6071 of 2009 #4# 2.9.2000 therefore the arguments of jurisdiction being raised are wholly misplaced. After giving my anxious thought to the rival submissions, I find merit in the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No.1-judgment debtor. It is not in dispute that Section 22 of 1995 Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of the matters covered under 1995 Act. It is further apparent that Sub Section (3) of Section 1 of 1995 Act ordains that the provisions of 1995 Act shall come into force on such date, as the State Government may, by Notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act. It further provides that the commencement of this Act in relation to any provision thereof shall be construed as a reference to the date on which that provision comes into force. For ready reference, Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of 1995 Act is reproduced below: “1. Short Title, extent and commencement.-(1) xx xx (2) xx xxx (3) It shall come into force on such date, as the State Government may, by Notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act, and any reference to the commencement of this Act in relation to any provision thereof shall be construed as a reference to the date on which that provision comes into force.” It further cannot be disputed that except Sections 8 & 24 (which came into force w.e.f 14.12.2000) the remaining provisions of 1995 Act came into force w.e.f 20.7.2001 in view of the Notification published in the Official Gazette dated 20.7.2001. Hence the plea raised in respect of nullity of the decree dated 2.9.2000 in view of the bar of jurisdiction C.R.No.6071 of 2009 #5# provided under Section 22 of 1995 Act, which is enforced w.e.f 20.7.2001 is entirely devoid of any merit, and hence rejected. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the learned Executing Court warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. October 13, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE