Rajendra Singh Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
..
--
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 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 shb.ild 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 elsewhere, that
the Services Tribunal set up under the U.P. Act No. 17/76 should be
withdrawn and an appropriate tribunal under the Central Administra
. tive Tribunals Act of 1985 should be set up. Such a Tribunal if con
stituted 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 F
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 G
plenary powers to deal with every aspect of the.dispute and would be
in accord with the current thinking on this subject-matter at different
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 possible in order that there may be uni-
formity of functioning and the High Court may be relieved of the H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 2 S.C.R.
A burden of dealing with the service disputes as is the situation at
present.
In course of the hearing, a statement showing yearwise institu
tion, disposal and pendency before the Public Services 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
during year Balance Tribunals Balance during the
year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1977 Two 2568 4724 1744
D 1978 Three 3700
2156
6834
2710
2690
3192
3072
10534 4761
2980
5773
1979 Four 5773
1980 Five 5657
1981 Five 5658
1982 Five
1983 Five
1984 Five
6561
7915
8133
2206
2461
8483 2826
8347 2689
865 I 2290
9633 1718
10121 1988
10594 1178
5657
5658
6561
7915
8133
9416
A cursory analysis would show that while in 1977 two Tribunals only
were functioning, in 1984 as many as five Tribunals 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 dis
posal of cases. For instance, while in 1978, 4,761 cases have been
disposed of, in the years 1982 and 1984 the numbers have been 1,718
and 1,178 respectively. Even five Tribunals in place of two have ob
viously 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
)
·-- .......
y
_,
R.S. YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 175
any system of review was in force. Apparently, the performance was
not being reviewed either by the Tribunal itself or by any other
agency.
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. Sampath
Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] I SCC 124, the disputes
require judicial handling and the adjudication being essentially judi
cial 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 bf 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 consequence 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 everywhere. 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 red
ressal forum should be available nearabout so that litigation may be
cheap and the forum of ventillating grievance 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
A 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 '7r
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. (