Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) 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 tribunals set up under U.P. Act 17 of 1976. In the Civilarising 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.

(3) WE are of the view, as we have already indicated elsewhere, that the Services tribunal set up under the U.P. Act 17 of 1976 should be withdrawn and an appropriate tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 should be set up.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.

(4) THE tribunal set up under the central Act is deemed to be one in terms of Article 323-A of the Constitution. When such a tribunal is set up the High courtS 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 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 different levels. We are, therefore, of the view that the U.P. Services tribunal should be substituted by a Tribunal under the Administrative tribunals Act as early as possible in order that there may be uniformity of functioning and the High court may be relieved of the burden of dealing with the service disputes as is the situation at present.

(5) IN course of the hearing, a statement showing yearwise institution, disposal and pendency before the Public Services 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 Services tribunals

Year

No. of

Opening

Cases

Total

Disposal

Closing

Tribunals

Balance

filed

during

Balance

during

year

the 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

3193

8851

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 tribunals only were functioning, in 1984 as many as five tribunals 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, 4761 cases have been disposed of, in the years 1982 and 1984 the numbers have been 1718 and 1178 respectively. Even five tribunals in place of two have obviously not been meeting the mounting challenge of institut