Allahabad High Court

SATISH SHANKAR SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN SAURABH DWIVEDI REGISTRAR CPC

Holding

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal and restored the claim petition for expeditious hearing.

Summary

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher appointed in 1993 and terminated on 12 May 2015, filed a claim petition before the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal, which remained pending for eleven years. The Tribunal dismissed the petition as not maintainable, invoking Section 4(5) of the U.P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976, which requires exhaustion of all service‑rule remedies. The petitioner challenged this dismissal by filing a writ petition, arguing that the maintainability issue should have been decided promptly, allowing her to avail the required remedies. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in delaying the maintainability determination and set aside its judgment, restoring the claim petition to the Tribunal for expeditious consideration. The Court directed the Tribunal to hear the petition without further delay and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribunal correctly applied Section 4(5) of the U.P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976 to dismiss the claim petition as not maintainable.
Whether the objection to maintainability must be decided at the earliest to allow the petitioner to exhaust statutory remedies.
Whether the High Court can set aside the Tribunal's order and restore the pending claim petition.

Legislation cited

U.P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976 — s. 4(5)

Subjects

termination of service
public service tribunal
maintainability
exhaustion of remedies
writ petition
expeditious hearing

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13973 of 2026

Satish Shankar Shukla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, C.S.C.

Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

1. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Ashok
Kumar Dwivedi, learned advocate appear for petitioner. Mr. Khare
submits, his client was appointed as Assistant Teacher in year 1993. Her
service was terminated on 12th May, 2015. She approached the Tribunal
to challenge the termination. Her claim petition was registered and
numbered as 1867 of 2015. It remained pending for eleven long years.

2. Under challenge is judgment dated 17th July, 2026 of the Tribunal
rejecting the petition as not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on
section 4(5) in U.P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976. The provision
is reproduced below

"Section 4: ..........(5) The Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit a reference
unless it is satisfied that the public servant has availed of all the remedies
available to him under the relevant service rules, regulations or contract
as to redressal of grievances."

Mr. Khare seeks interference on submission, in the meantime several writ
petitions were filed involving same cause. They were allowed. This Court
do interfere and grant the relief since, the termination was bad.

3. Mr. Piyush Shukla, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears for
State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned advocate, for respondent nos.
3 and 4.
WRIA No. 13973 of 2026
2

4. The Tribunal relied upon the provision to dismiss the claim petition as
not maintainable. In our view, objection to maintainability should be dealt
with at the earliest. The claim petition remained pending from year 2015
to find rejection by impugned judgment dated 17th July, 2026. In event
the claim petition was taken up on the question of maintainability
expeditiously and dealt with, petitioner could have availed all the
remedies available to her under the relevant service rules. It is not an
ordinary situation.

5. In the circumstances, we think it fit to interfere by setting aside
impugned judgment and restoring the claim petition to the Tribunal. We
will not ourselves interfere since, the Tribunal is equipped to consider the
claim petition on facts as well as in law.

6. Mr. Khare seeks direction for expedition. Petitioner will forthwith
communicate certified copy of this order to the Tribunal, for notice being
issued on date of hearing. We request the Tribunal to deal with the claim
petition as expeditiously as possible considering the delay and subsequent
events of similar challenges dealt with in the meantime.

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)
September 29, 2026
Arif

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…