U.P JAL NIGAM AND ANR. versus NARESHWAR SAHAI MATHUR AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 06-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
NARESHW AR SAHAI MATHUR AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 6, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constirution of India, 1950 : 
Article 226-Filing of Writ Petitions in service matters-Alternative 
statutory remedy before Tribunal not availed-Held Statutory obligation to C 
first avail the statutory remedy before taking recourse to Art. 226. 
The U.P. Public Service Tribunal was specially constituted to 
consider the service grievances of the U.P. State Government servants. 
Some writ petitions were filed in the High Court without approaching D 
the Tribunal and the High Court directed the petitioners to avail of the 
statutory remedy from the Tribunal and in case, they could not succeed 
they may approach the High Court. The respondent also tiled a Writ 
Petition and the High Court entertained the petition and directed the 
parties to complete their pleadings. The appellant filed an application E 
praying for dismissal of the Writ Petition and for directing the respon· 
dent to first avail the statutory remedy. The application was rejected, 
against which the present appeal bas been filed. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : When a statutory Tribunal was constituted specially to 
look into the grievances or the government servants, it is statutory 
obligation on the part or such government servants, first to avail or the 
statutory remedy. In case, they are aggrieved against the order passed 
F 
by the Tribunal, the remedy under Art. 226 would always be available G 
to them. Under these circumstances, when the two Division Benches bad 
rightly declined to entertain the Writ Petitions and directed the parties 
to avail or the statutory remedy, another Division Bench was wholly 
unjustified In entertaining the Writ Petition and directing its early 
disposal. [317·A, Bl 
H 
315 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6867 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.94 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 928(SS) of 1992. 
B 
Gopal Subramaniam and R.B. Misra for the Appellants. 
c 
Pramod Swarup, Syed Abu Ahmad and M.S. Bisht for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The matter relates to the promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, 
Level II in U.P. Jal Nigam. Th U.P. Public Service Tribunal is specially 
D constituted to consider the service grievances of the government servants 
of the U.P. State. When Government servants, Mr. Om Narain Dwivedi 
and S.C. Atri, approached the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad 
Bench for redressal of their service grievances, two different Benches of 
the High Court by orders dated March 23, 1993 and April 15, 1993 directed 
E 
F 
them to avail of the statutory alternative remedy available from the 
Tribunal and in case they were unsuccessful in getting the relief, to ap-
proach the High Court. The respondent, who was also a Govt. servant filed 
the Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench 
seeking relief as regards his service grievance and the High Court enter-
tained the Writ Petition and directed the parties to complete their plead-
ings. The appellant filed an application to dismiss the Writ Petiton and 
direct the respondent to avail of the statutory remedy. The Division Bench, 
by the impugned order dated January 19, 1994, held that since the plead-
ings were complete, it was not necessary to relegate the parties to the 
Tribunal to avail of the statutory remedy and that, therefore, dismissed the 
G application. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
It is contended for the respondents by Mr. Pramod Swarup, the 
learned counsel for respondents that since the pleadings were complete, 
direction was given by the learned Chief Justice for early disposal and 
hence this is not a case warranting interference under Art. 136. We find 
H no force in the contention. 
U.P.1ALNIGAM v. N.S.MATIIUR 
317 
When a statutory Tnbunal was constituted specially to look into the A 
grievances of the government servants, it is statutory obligation on the part 
of such government servants, first to avail of the statutory remedy. In case, 
they are aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the remedy 
under Art. 226 is always available to them. Under these circumstances, 
when the two Division Benches had rightly declined to entertain the Writ B 
Petitions and directed the parties to avail of the statutory remedy, anoth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.