http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/03/1990

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: 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.

HEADNOTE:     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the appeals/petitions, this Court,     HELD:  1.1 The Services Tribunal set up under  the  U.P. Act No. 17/76 should be withdrawn and an appropriate  tribu- nal  under  the Central Administrative Tribunals  Act,  1985 should  be  set up.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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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]

JUDGMENT:     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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

   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. 177