AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img






U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr Vs. Nareshwar Sahi Mathur & Anrs [1994] INSC 516 (6 October 1994)

Ramaswamy, K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)

CITATION: 1995 SCC (1) 21 1994 SCALE (4)589

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The matter relates to promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Level 11 in U.R Jal Nigam. The U.R Public Services Tribunal is specially constituted to consider the service grievances of government servants of the U.P. State.

When government servants, Mr Om Narain Dwivedi and Mr S.C. Atri, approached the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad Bench for redressal of their service grievances, two different Benches of the High Court by orders dated 23-3- 1993 and 15-4-1993 directed to avail themselves of the statutory alternative remedy available from the Tribunal and in case they were unsuccessful in getting the relief, to approach the High Court. The respondent, who was also a government servant filed the writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench seeking relief as regards his service grievance and the High Court entertained the writ petition and directed the parties to complete their pleadings. The appellant filed an application to dismiss the writ petition and direct the respondent to avail himself of the statutory remedy. The Division Bench, by the impugned order dated 19-1-1994, held that since the pleadings were complete, it was not necessary to relegate the parties to the Tribunal to avail themselves of the statutory remedy and that, therefore, dismissed the application. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. It is contended for the respondents by Mr Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents that since the pleadings were complete, direction was given by the learned Chief Justice for early disposal and hence this is not a case warranting interference under Article 136. We find no force in the contention.

4. When a statutory Tribunal was constituted specially to look into the grievances of government servants, it is statutory obligation on the part of such government servants, first to avail them selves of the statutory remedy.

In case, they are aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the remedy under Article 226 is always available to them. Under these circumstances, when the two Division Benches had rightly declined to 23 entertain the writ petitions and directed the parties to avail themselves of the statutory remedy, another Division Bench was wholly unjustified in entertaining the writ petition under the impugned order and directing its early disposal.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The High Court is requested to transmit the papers to the Tribunal. It is open to the respondents to avail themselves of the statutory remedy before the Tribunal. No costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys