Back
1984 Supreme(All) 602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.N. Sapru, J.
Laxmi Narain Gupta – Appellant
Versus
U.P. Public Services Tribunal – Respondent
Civil Misc. W.P. No. 10180 of 1980
Decided On : 24-09-1984
For the Appellant :B.B. Mandhyan, Advocate
A reference application under section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act is not barred by the provisions of Section 326(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, as the Public Services Tribunal is not a court and a reference application is not a suit.
Headnote:
PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 326 OF U.P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT - APPLICABILITY - REFERENCE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL ACT - WHETHER BARRED - PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL - NATURE OF - WHETHER A COURT - REFERENCE APPLICATION - WHETHER A SUIT - U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES (TRIBUNALS) ACT, 1976 - SECTIONS 4, 5, 6 - U.P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT - SECTION 326.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Municipal Board, Ujhani, was sent on deputation to the Municipal Board, Kasganj, for one year. The deputation was subsequently extended for a further period of one year. During the extended period of deputation, the Municipal Board, Kasganj refused to pay the petitioner's salary, claiming that the extension of his deputation had not been sanctioned by the Government. The petitioner filed a suit, which was withdrawn, and subsequently filed another suit, which abated on the coming into force of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act 1976. The petitioner then filed a reference application before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, seeking recovery of arrears of pay and a mandatory injunction requiring the respondents to issue a letter relieving him and returning him to the Municipal Board, Ujhani.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner had not given notice under section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act to the Municipal Board, Ujhani before instituting the claim petition. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order by way of a writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether a reference application under section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act is barred in view of the provisions of Section 326(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act? 2. Whether the Public Services Tribunal constituted under the Act is a court? 3. Whether a reference application is a suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Public Services Tribunal constituted under the Act is not a court. 2. A reference application is not a suit. 3. Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act applies to a suit normally instituted in a court. 4. There is no provision in the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 proving that a restriction of the nature on the institution of, suit contemplated by section 80 Civil Procedure Code or by section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act will apply to reference applications instituted before the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in part. The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition as against the Municipal Board Kasganj was maintained. However, a writ of Mandamus was issued to Municipal Board, Ujhani commanding it to permit the petitioner to rejoin the post he was holding when he was sent on deputation. The petitioner was also directed to be paid his salary and allowances in future as well as arrears of salary and allowances due to him from Municipal Board. Ujhani, with effect from 1.2.1972.
B.N. Sapru, J.
This writ petition has been filed by Sri Laxmi Narain Gupta and is directed against the order dated 25.7.1980 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal 2, Lucknow. Amongst the respondents are the Municipal Board, Kasganj District Etah and Municipal Board, Ujhani District Badaun.
2. The petitioner was an employee of the Municipal Board, Ujhani, District Badaun. With the sanction of the Government the petitioner was sent on deputation to Municipal Board, Kasganj, District Etah. The deputation was for one year, The deputation was subsequently extended for a further period of one year. During the extended period of deputation of one year the Municipal Board, Kasganj took the stand that since the extension of deputation of the petitioner had not been sanctioned, it informed the petitioner that his services were no longer required by Municipal Board, Kasganj and refused to pay him salary. In this Court the stand taken by the Municipal Board, Kasganj is that as the extension of the deputation of the petitioner was not sanctioned by the Government it was not possible to employ the petitioner. The petitioner on 7.8.1970 wrote to Adhyaksha Municipal Board, Kasganj that when his services were not required, he may be relieved from service. Alternatively it was mentioned that if he is required then his services should be transferred from Municipal Board, Ujhani. A copy of this Letter was endorsed to Adhyaksha Municipal Board, Ujhani with a request that in the event of Kasganj Municipal Board is not extending the deputation of the petitioner, the petitioner should be granted earned leave from 9.8.70. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 28, 1972 to Adhyaksha Municipal Board, Ujhani requesting that he be permitted to join his post at Ujhani. The petitioner was also not allowed re-join at Ujhani Municipal Board. The petitioner then filed a suit which was withdrawn. Subsequently he filed another suit which abated on the coming into force of U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act 1976 by virtue of section 6(2) of the Act, and the record was transmitted to the Tribunal as provided in that sub-section. The petitioner's case came before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the relief sought was for recovery of Rs. 5833.43 as arrears of pay as for a mandatory injunction requiring the respondents no. 1 to 3 to issue a letter to the Municipal Board, Ujhani relieving the petitioner and returning him to Municipal Board, Ujhani.
3. The Tribunal found that after the expiry of the period of deputation of the petitioner with the Municipal Board, Ujhani, which expired on 10.8.69, the petitioner was not entitled to get any salary from Municipal Board, Kasganj. It, however, found that the petitioner's claim for arrears of salary for the period from March, 1972 to July 1972 could be decreed. It, however, dismissed the claim petition as a whole on the ground that the petitioner had not given notice under section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act to the Municipal Board, Ujhani before instituting the claim petition.
4. Aggrieved against the decision of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
5. The first question in this writ petition is as to whether the reference application under section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act was barred in view of the provisions of Section 326(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Section 326(1) of U.P. Municipalities Act lays down as follows:
"No suit shall be instituted against a board, or against a member, officer or servant of a board, in respect of an act done or purporting to have been done in its or his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been, in the case of a board, left at its office, and in the case of a member, officer or servant, delivered to him or left at his office or place of abode, explicitly stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, and the amount of compensation cl
