Back
2005 Supreme(UK) 501
2006 (1) U.D., 5
High Court of Uttaranchal
Hon'ble Cyriac Joseph, C.J. and Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Smt. Premwati Arora - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttaranchal and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 302 of 2005(S/B),
decided on 25-11-2005 .
Sri Manoj Tiwari Advocate for the Petitioner
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a public servant in the service of the government has an efficacious alternate remedy of filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal, which has the power to pass interlocutory orders pending final decision in any reference, including matters relating to the petitioner's employment.
Headnote:
Public Servant - Employment Matter - The court held that the petitioner, being a public servant in the service of the Government of Uttarnachal, has an efficacious alternate remedy of filing a claim petition before the Uttaranchal Public Services Tribunal. The court also clarified that the Tribunal has the power to pass interlocutory orders pending final decision in any reference, including the matter relating to the petitioner's employment, and therefore declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public servant in the service of the Government of Uttarnachal, sought relief in a writ petition related to his employment under the government. The petitioner claimed that the Public Services Tribunal had no power to pass interim orders, leading to a reduction in his pay till a final decision is taken by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy of filing a claim petition before the Uttaranchal Public Services Tribunal, which has the power to pass interlocutory orders pending final decision in any reference, including the matter relating to the petitioner's employment. Therefore, the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim for relief in a writ petition related to his employment as a public servant and the contention regarding the power of the Public Services Tribunal to pass interim orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 5(5)(j) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, which applies to the Uttaranchal Public Services Tribunal, and the determination that the dispute involved in the case did not attract the prohibition contained in Sections 5B and 5C of the said Act against making an interim order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed in limine by the court, declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the material is placed on record, we are satisfied that the petitioner is a public servant in the service of the Government of Uttarnachal and the relief claimed in this writ petition is in respect of a matter relating to his employment under the Government of Uttaranchal. Hence, the petitioner has got an efficacious alternate remedy of filing a claim petition before the Uttaranchal Public Services Tribunal.
2. Mr. Manoj Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Public Services Tribunal has no power to pass interim orders, the petitioner will have to suffer reduction in his pay till a final decision is taken by the Tribunal in any claim petition flied by him and therefore, the writ petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The above contention is misconceived. According to Section 5(5)(j) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 which is applicable to the Uttaranchal Public Services Tribunal also, the Tribunal has the power to pass interlocutory orders pending final decision in any reference, on such terms, if any, as it thinks fit to impose. The dispute involved in this case is not a matter which attracts the Prohibition contained in Sections 5B and 5C of the said Act against making an interim order. Therefore, we do not find any valid reason to entertain this writ petition. We decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.
3. Hence, the writ petition Is dismissed in limine.
