Allahabad HC FB Clarifies: Special Appeals Against UPSRTC Disciplinary Orders Maintainable; RTC Act Under Union List - 2024-07-08

Allahabad High Court Full Bench Settles Debate: Special Appeals Against UPSRTC Disciplinary Orders Maintainable

Allahabad, July 8, 2024: In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of intra-court appeals, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that special appeals are maintainable against Single Judge decisions concerning disciplinary actions taken under the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) Employees Service Regulations, 1981. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali , Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , and Justice Vikas Budhwar , overruled a previous Division Bench judgment and settled conflicting judicial opinions on the matter.

Case Background and Procedural Journey

The issue arose from a special appeal filed by Rajit Ram Yadav , a former UPSRTC Conductor. He was removed from service in 2019, and his subsequent departmental appeal and revision were dismissed by UPSRTC authorities (Regional Manager and Chairman, respectively). Mr. Yadav challenged these orders via a writ petition (Writ – A No. 254 of 2021), which a learned Single Judge dismissed on January 13, 2021, citing the availability of an alternative remedy.

Mr. Yadav then filed the present special appeal (Special Appeal No. - 31 of 2021) challenging the Single Judge's dismissal order.

The Maintainability Conundrum

During the appeal hearing before a Division Bench, the respondents (UPSRTC/State) contested its maintainability, relying on the exclusion clause in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, and citing the Division Bench decision in UPSRTC through RM vs. Abhai Raj Singh . They argued that the disciplinary orders were passed under regulations concerning service matters, falling under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, thus barring a special appeal.

Conversely, the appellant argued maintainability, citing earlier Division Bench judgments in Jageshwar Prasad Tiwari vs. UPSRTC and Madan Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. They contended that the Regulations were framed under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (RTC Act), a Central Act referable to the Union List (Entries 43 & 44 - incorporation and regulation of corporations). If the parent Act pertained to the Union List, the exclusion clause in Rule 5, which applies only to Acts related to State or Concurrent List matters, would not operate.

Noting the direct conflict and observing that the Abhai Raj Singh judgment proceeded on an allegedly wrong assumption that the parent legislation was a State Act, the Division Bench referred the matter to a Larger Bench.

Legal Framework: Chapter VIII Rule 5 Exclusion

Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules allows special appeals against Single Judge judgments but carves out exceptions. Relevant here is the exception barring appeals against judgments passed under Article 226/227 concerning orders of an officer/authority exercising appellate/revisional jurisdiction "under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution".

Full Bench Analysis: Pith and Substance Doctrine Applied

The Full Bench meticulously traced the legislative history of special appeals and analyzed the relevant legal provisions. The core question was whether the RTC Act, 1950, under which the UPSRTC Service Regulations were framed (using powers under Section 45), should be categorized under the Union List or the Concurrent List for the purpose of Rule 5.

Applying the well-established doctrine of 'pith and substance', the Court examined the "true nature and character" of the RTC Act, 1950. The Bench observed:

> "It is evident from the scheme of the Act that the main object of the legislation is to provide for the incorporation and regulation of Road Transport Corporations... having regard to the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of road transport."

The Court held that the RTC Act, 1950, falls squarely under Entries 43 and 44 of the Union List (List I), which deal with the incorporation and regulation of corporations.

The Bench reasoned that the power granted under Section 45(2)(c) to frame regulations regarding employee service conditions is incidental to the primary purpose of regulating the corporation. Citing precedents like Sita Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ( M.P.S.R.T.C. Bairagarh , Bhopal vs. Ram Chandra ), the Court emphasized:

> "Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, we are of the considered opinion that the Act is referable to List 1 Entry 43 and 44. The power to legislate in relation to ‘regulation of the corporations’ under the aforesaid Entries, includes within its umbrella the regulation of its workforce... Merely because Section 45(2)(c) invests the Corporation with power to make Regulations, inter alia, concerning the conditions of appointment and service of its employees, would not bring the legislation within the ambit of List-III Item No. 22 or 24..."

The Court explicitly rejected the respondents' argument that the subject matter of the dispute (service conditions) should determine the applicable list, stating, "...the expression 'with respect to' refers to source of State or Central Legislation and not the subject matter of dispute involved in a particular case."

Conflicting Precedents Resolved

Based on this analysis, the Full Bench concluded:

The orders passed by UPSRTC authorities under the 1981 Regulations were indeed made "under" the RTC Act, 1950 (a Central Act).

However, since the RTC Act, 1950, in its pith and substance, relates to matters in the Union List (Entries 43/44), the exclusion clause in Chapter VIII Rule 5 does not apply.

Consequently, the Division Bench decisions in Jageshwar Prasad Tiwari and Madan Pal Singh , which held such appeals maintainable, laid down the correct law.

The decision in Abhai Raj Singh , which held such appeals non-maintainable based on a mistaken premise regarding the nature of the parent legislation, was overruled to that extent.

The Final Decision

The Full Bench answered the referred questions as follows:

An intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 against a Single Judge judgment in a writ petition challenging appellate/revisional orders under the UPSRTC Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, is maintainable .

The decisions in Jageshwar Prasad Tiwari and Madan Pal Singh lay down the correct law , while Abhai Raj Singh does not and is overruled regarding the non-maintainability finding.

The Court directed that the papers of the special appeal be placed before the appropriate Division Bench for hearing and disposal on merits. This ruling provides crucial clarity for litigants and practitioners dealing with service matters involving UPSRTC employees and the maintainability of special appeals in the Allahabad High Court.