RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 171 · Decided: 23-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal Act, 
1976: State Services 
Tribunal-Substitution of-By Tribunal under the Central Adminis-
j trative Tribunals Act, 1985-Manning of Services Tribunal by adequate 
number of Judges of appropriate level-Increase in number of 
Benches-Setting up of Branches in different parts of State-Directions 
issued. 
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 Tribunals set np under U.P. Act 17 of 1976. Hence, the 
appeals, by special leave/Writ Petitions. 
... 
Disposing of the appeals/petitions, this Court, 
HELD: I. I 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17 /76 should be withdrawn and an appropriate tribunal under the 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, 1985 should be set up. Such a 
Tribunal is deemed to be one in terms of Article 323A of the Constitu-
tion. 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 dispute. This would be 
in accord with _the current thinking on this subject-matter at different 
levels. [I73E; F-Gl 
-; 
1.2 A cursory analysis of yearwise institution, pendency 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 certainly 
would lead accumulation. to mount up. These aspects require to be 
noticed seriously. [174F-H] 
171 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
172 
SUPREME COl)RT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
1.3 Since the disputes require judicial handling, and the adjudi-
cation being essentially judicial in character, an adequate number of 
Judges oftbe appropriate level should man the Services Tribunals. This 
would create appropriate temper and generate atmosphere snitable_in 
an adjudicatory Tribunal and the institution as well would command 
the requisite confidence of the disputants. [17SB-C] 
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] I SCC 
124, referred to. 
1.4 State of Uttar Pradesh territorially is the second largest State 
in India, but populationwise comes first. Almost every part of the State 
C is well advanced and service litigation in such setting is likely to arise 
everywhere. Theref()re 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 Government 
should consider increasing the number of Benches and locating them at 
various sectors or depending upon the number of institution of disputes 
D and pen_dency at the level of independent Commissionerate or by club-
bing two or three of them together. The location of Benches would 
require 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. [i75E-H; J76A] 
E · 
The decision of the High Court in each of the cases is set aside and 
:.>' 
F 
G 
the dispute transferred to the Services Tribunal for disposal within six 
months. [l 73t:-D J 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE/ORIGINAL 
JURISDICTION: Civil 
Appeals No. 1815 of 1982 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 20. 1.1982 of the 
Allahabad High Court in C.W.P. No. 2701of1981. 
Shankar Ghosh, R.K. Jain, R.B. Mehrotra, Ms. Abha Sharma, 
Ms. Sangita Tripathi Manda!. R.P. Singh, Harish N. Salve, D.K. 
Garg, dopal Subramanium, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, C.P. Pandey, S.K 
Sabharwal, M.P. Sarawala, R.S. Sodhi, D.D. Gupta, Shakil Ahmed 
Syed, K.R.R. Pillai, M.A. Firoz, R.D. Upadhyay, U.S. Prasad and 
C.M. Nayar for the appearing parties. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.. 
--
R.S. YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 
173 
RANG ANA TH MISRA, J. Special leave granted. 
This bunch of cases either by special leave or under Article 32 of 
the Co.nstitution is by a set of L

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