Rajendra
Singh Yadav & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [1990] INSC 106 (23 March 1990)
Misra
Rangnath Misra Rangnath Punchhi, M.M. Ramaswamy, K.
CITATION:
1990 SCR (2) 171 1990 SCC (2) 763 JT 1990 (2) 438 1990 SCALE (1)651
ACT:
Uttar
Pradesh Services Tribunal Act. 1970: State Services Tribunal--Substitution
of--By Tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985--Manning
of Services Tribunal by adequate number of Judges of appropri- ate
level--Increase in number of Benches--Setting up of Branches in different parts
of State-- Directions issued.
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellants/petitioners filed Writ Petitions before the High Court against the
termination of their services as Lekhpals in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court did not entertain
the petitions on the ground that alternate relief was available before the U.P.
Public Services Tribu- nals set up under U.P. Act 17 of 1976. Hence, the
appeals, by special leave/Writ Petitions.
Disposing
of the appeals/petitions, this Court, HELD: 1.1 The Services Tribunal set up
under the U.P. Act No. 17/76 should be withdrawn and an appropriate tribu- nal
under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 should be set up. Such a
Tribunal is deemed to be one in terms of Article 323A of the Constitution. When
set up, it would take away High Court's jurisdiction in regard to service
disputes, and function as its substitute. It would have plenary powers to deal
with every aspect of the dis- pute. This would be in accord with the current
thinking on this subject-matter at different levels. [173E; F-G]
1.2 A
cursory analysis of year wise institution, penden- cy and disposal of cases
between 1977 and 1984 before the Public Services Tribunal shows that while
institutions have sizeably fallen or remained more or less constant, there has
been rapid fall in the disposal of cases, even though there has been increase
in strength of Tribunals, and only 50 to 60% of the institutions are being
attended to, which cer- tainly would lead accumulation to mount up. These aspects
require to be noticed seriously. [174F-H] 172
1.3
Since the disputes require judicial handling, and the adjudication being
essentially judicial in character, an adequate number of judges of the
appropriate level should man the Services Tribunals. This would create
appropriate temper and generate atmosphere suitable in n adjudicatory Tribunal
and the institution as well would command he requi- site confidence of the
disputants. [175B-C] S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] 1
SCC 24, referred to.
1.4
State of Uttar Pradesh territorially is the second largest
State India, but populationwise comes first. Almost every part of the State
well advanced and service litigation in such setting is likely to arise
everywhere. Therefore to locate the seat of the Tribunals at the State capital
is not appropriate. Keeping in view the accepted philosophy that justice should
be taken to everyone's doors, State Govern- ment would consider increasing the
number of Benches and locating them at various sectors or depending upon the
number of institution of disputes and pendency at the level of independent Commissionerate
or by clubing two or three of them together. The location of Benches would
inquire further examination at administrative level. but definitely, the
tribunals should be available in different parts of the State and all the
benches of the Tribunal should not be located at one place. [175E-H; 176A] The
decision of the High Court in each of the cases is set aside and e dispute
transferred to the Services Tribunal for disposal within six months. [173C-D]
CIVIL
APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil appeals No. 18 15 of 1982 etc.
From
the Judgment and Order dated the 20.1.1982 of the Allahabad High Court in
C.W.P. No. 2701 of 1981.
Shankar
Ghosh, R.K. Jain, R.B. Mehrotra, Ms. Abha Sharma, Sangira Tripathi Mandal, R.P.
Singh, Harish N. Salve, D.K. trg, Gopal Subramanium, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, C.P. Pandey,
S.K pharwal, M.P. Sarawala, R.S. Sodhi, D.D. Gupta, Shakil Ahmed ed, K.R.R. Pillai,
M.A. Firoz, R.D. Upadhyay, U.S. Prasad and VI. Nayar for the appearing parties.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by 173 RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special leave
granted.
This
bunch of cases either by special leave or under Article 32 of the Constitution
is by a set of Lekhpals serving in the State of Uttar Pradesh whose services have been terminated. Their Writ Petitions
to the High Court have not been entertained on the ground that alternate relief
is available before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal set up under U.P. Act No.
17 of 1976. In the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 8826
of 1982 the High Court examined the question at length as to whether the
jurisdiction of the High Court has been taken away by the setting up of the
Services Tribunal under the U.P. Act. We have heard counsel for the parties at
some length as apart from this group of cases, some other cases involving the
same question have also been heard and those matters have been disposed of excepting
this bunch. On merit, we are of the view that the decisions of the High Court
should be vacated and in each case the dispute shall stand transferred to the
Services Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall
dispose of these cases within six months from the date of the receipt of this
order.
We are
at the view, as we have already indicated else- where, that the 'Services
Tribunal set up under the U.P. Act No. 17/76 should be withdrawn and an
appropriate tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985
should be set up. Such a Tribunal if constituted would be in accord with the
service jurisprudence which is developing.
Several
States have already constituted such Tribunals under the Central Act.
The
Tribunal set up under the Central Act is deemed to be one in terms of Article
323A of the Constitution. When such a Tribunal is set up the High Court's
jurisdiction in regard to service disputes is taken away and the Tribunal
functions as a substitute of the High Court. More or less this service jurisprudence
has almost gained ground and there is no justification as to why the Services
Tribunal of a different pattern should operate in the State of Uttar Pradesh with inadequate powers to deal with
every situation arising before it. A Tribunal set up under the Central
Administrative Tribunals Act would have plenary powers to deal with every
aspect of the dispute and would be in accord with the current thinking on this
subject-matter at differ- ent levels. We are, therefore, of the view that the
U.P.
Services
Tribunal should be substituted by a Tribunal under the Central Administrative
Tribunals Act as early as possi- ble in order that there may be uniformity of
functioning and the High Court may be relieved of the 174 burden of dealing
with the service disputes as is the situa- tion at present.
In
course of the hearing, a statement showing yearwise institution, disposal and pendency
before the Public Serv- ices Tribunals has been placed before us and we extract
the same for convenience:
STATEMENT
SHOWING THE YEARWISE DISPOSAL, FILING AND PENDING CASES BEFORE THE PUBLIC
SERVICE TRIBUNALS Year No.of Opening Cases filed Total Disposal Closing
Tribunals Balance during the during Balance year year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1977 Two
2568 2156 4724 1744 2980 1978 Three 3700 6834 10534 4761 5773 1979 Four 5773
2710 8483 2826 5657 1980 Five 5657 2690 8347 2689 5658 1981 Five 5658 3192 8651
2290 6561 1982 Five 6561 3072 9633 1718 7915 1983 Five 7915 2206 10121 1988
8133 1984 Five 8133 2461 10594 1178 9416 A cursory analysis would show that
while in 1977 two Tribu- nals only were functioning, in 1984 as many as five Tribu-
nals came to be set up. The chart indicates that while institutions have sizeably
fallen or remained more or less constant, there has been rapid fall in the
disposal of cases. For instance, while in 1978, 4,761 cases have been disposed
of, in the years 1982 and 1984 the numbers have been 1,7 18 and 1,178
respectively. Even five Tribunals in place of two have obviously not been
meeting the mounting challenge of institutions. Learned counsel for the State
of Uttar Pradesh was not able to indicate any
specific reason as to why while the strength of Tribunals went up there was a
proportionate fall in the disposals. Again we find that 50 to 60% of the
institutions are being attended to which certainly would lead accumulation to
mount up. These aspects require to be noticed seriously and the State
Government should have applied its mind if 175 any system of review was in
force. Apparently, the perform- ance was not being reviewed either by the
Tribunal itself or by any other agency.
We
have been told that the Services Tribunal mostly consists of Administrative
Officers and the judicial element in the manning part of the Tribunal is very
small. As was pointed out by us in S.P. Sam path Kurnar v. Union of India &
Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 124, the disputes require judicial handling and the
adjudication being essentially judicial in character it is necessary that an
adequate number of Judges of the appropriate level should man the Services
Tribunals.
This
would create the appropriate temper and generate the atmosphere suitable in an
adjudicatory Tribunal and the institution as well would command the requisite
confidence of the disputants. We have indicated in the connected matter that steps
should be taken to replace the Services Tribunals by Tribunals under the
Central Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985. That would give the Tribunal the
necessary colour in terms of Article 323A of the Constitution. As a conse- quence
of setting up of such Tribunals, the jurisdiction of the High Court would be
taken away and the Tribunals can with plenary powers function appropriately.
The disputes which have arisen on account of the Services Tribunals not having
complete jurisdiction to deal with every situation arising before it would then
not arise.
We
have pointed out that notice has been issued in a later case for the State's
response to the question of Tribunals to be located at different parts of the
State.
State
of Uttar Pradesh territorially is the second largest
State in India but considering the population it
comes first. Almost every part of the State is well advanced and service
litigation in such setting is likely to arise every- where. To locate the seat
of the Tribunals at the State capital in such a situation is not appropriate.
The accepted philosophy relevant to the question today is that justice should
be taken to everyone's doors. This, of course, is not a statement which should
be taken literally but undoubtedly the redressal forum should be available nearabout
so that litigation may be cheap and the forum of ventillating griev- ance may
not be difficult to approach. Keeping that in view which is a legitimate
consideration it would be appropriate for the State Government to consider,
firstly, increase in the number of Benches of the Tribunal and secondly, to
locate them not at the same station but at various sectors or depending upon
the number of institution of disputes and pendency at the level of independent Commissionerate
or by clubbing two or three of them together. This, of course, is a matter
which would require further 176 examination at the administrative level and,
therefore, we express no opinion regarding location of such Tribunal although
we are of the definite view that there should be Tribunals available in
different parts of the State and all the Benches of the Tribunal should not be
located at one place.
The
writ Petitions and the civil appeals are disposed of with these directions.,
N.P.V. Petition & Appeals disposed of.
Back