PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 29-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR 
JANUARY 29, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE CJ AND ASHOK BHAN, J.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
VJ/ Schedule List 11 Ently 41-legislative competence of State to enact 
C provisions of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976-Discussed. 
D 
legislative action of State-Scope of-Discussed 
U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976: (as amended by Act 5 of 
2000): 
Section 4(/)-Reference of claim to Tribunal with regard to an 'order' 
pertaining to service matter- Validity of-Held: since no amendment or 
clarification had come in the Act, an 'omission' and 'inaction' on the part of 
the authority could be challenged by filing writ petition under Article 226 of 
E the Constitution in High Court-Thus section 4 (/) constitutio11al/y va/id-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226. 
Section 5(5B)-Prohibiting Tribunal from passing interim order in respect 
of an order made or purporting to be made by employer for the suspension, 
dismissal, re}noval, reduction in rank, termination, compulsory retirement or 
F reversion of public servant-Constitutional validity of-Held: Valid since the 
cases in which operation of orders of dismissal, removal, termination etc. is 
stayed by way of interim order is later on upheld at final stage then it results 
in wrong usurpation of the office by employee during the operation of interim 
order. 
G 
Section 5(5C)-Prohibiting Tribunal from making interim order in respect 
of an adverse ently of employees-Validity of-Held: Valid 
Section 3(4A){b)-Held is in pari materia with Section 6(2){b) of the 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985·-Administrative Triqimals Act, 1985-
H Section 6(2){b). 
666 
, • 
PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION"· STATEOFU.P. 
667 
U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 was promulgated for A 
adjudication of disputes pertaining to employment matters of public 
servants of State Government and employees of Government undertakings, 
local bodies etc. The 1976 Act was amended from time to time. Sub section 
(SB) of Section S was inserted which prohibited the Tribunal from passing 
interim order in respect of order made or purporting t!'. be p1ade by B 
employer for the suspension, dismissal, removal, reducti<ln in rank, 
termination, compulsory retirement or reversion of public servant; sub 
Section (SC) provided that the Tribunal shall have no power to make 
interim ~rder in respect of adverse entry; Section 4(1) provided that public 
servants could not approach the Tribunal for inaction on the part of 
authority in respect of his legal rights; and Section 3 provided for C 
appointment of Chairman, Vice-chairman (Judicial) and Vice-chairman 
(Administrative) and Members. Various writ petitions were filed 
challenging the constitutional validity of the newly added sections. High 
Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act as well as the subsequent 
amendments made therein. Hence the present appeal. 
D 
Appellants inter a/ia contended that the amendments brought about 
in the Act are violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to a public 
servant; that for effective adjudication to a cause of action complete 
jurisdiction to grant relief including the interim relief should vest in one 
and the same forum; that single cause of action cannot be split and divided E 
for getting the interim and final relief in two different forums which works 
out to be iniquitous, onerous and oppressive; that the High Court may 
not intervene for giving interim relief as it is precluded from going il)to 
dispute on merits at first instance which practically leaves the litigant from 
getting any immediate relief against an order of transfer, termination, 
suspension, removal, dismissal etc; that it also results in additional F 
expenses to the litigant thus defeating the purpose of the Act itself thus 
sub-section SB and SC are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution being arbitrary; and that the object of the amendments was 
to bring the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 in tune with the 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 198S whereas it is to the contrary. 
G 
Respondents contended that a litigant is not left without any remedy, 
he has a right to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the 
Constitution for redressal of his grievance for·interim relief; that the 
power to grant interim relief from the Tribunal has not been taken away 
completely, it has only been taken away partially; that this 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.