Holding

The Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal under Act 17 of 1976 should be withdrawn and a tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 should be constituted, which will take over exclusive jurisdiction over service disputes, displacing the High Court’s jurisdiction.

Issues considered

Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters is barred by the existence of the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal under the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal Act, 1976.
Whether the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal is an adequate forum for adjudicating service disputes.
Whether a tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 should replace the State Tribunal and become the exclusive forum under Article 323A of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Subjects

service lawadministrative tribunaljurisdictionhigh courtArticle 323AUttar Pradeshtermination of servicebench locationjudicial handling

Judgment

RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

MARCH 23, 1990

[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND B
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 ofServices Tribunal by adequate
number of Judges of appropriate level-Increase in number of
Benches-Setting up of Branches in different parts of State-Directions c
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 D
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,
E
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,..__ 17 /76 should be withdrawn and an appropriate tribunal under the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 F
-,- 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 G
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] H

171
172 SUPREME COl)RT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A 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]
B
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 :.>'
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.
F
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,
G
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 ANATH MISRA, J. Special leave granted.
A
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 B
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 c
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. D

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 E
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:
B
STATEMENT SHOWING THE YEARWISE DISPOSAL,
FILING AND PENDING CASES BEFORE THE PUBLIC
SERVICE TRIBUNALS

Year No. of Opening Cases filed Total Disposal Closing
Tribunals Balance during the during year Balance
c year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1977 Two 2568 2156 4724 1744 2980
D 1978 Three 3700 6834 10534 4761 5773
1979 Four 5773 2710 8483 2826 5657
1980 Five 5657 2690 8347 2689 5658
1981 Five 5658 3192 865 I 2290 6561
E 1982 Five 6561 3072 9633 1718 7915
1983 Five 7915 2206 10121 1988 8133
1984 Five 8133 2461 10594 1178 9416

A cursory analysis would show that while in 1977 two Tribunals only
F
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-
G
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
H
seriously and the State Government should have applied its mind if
R.S. YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 175

any system of review was in force. Apparently, the performance was
A
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 B
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
c
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 D
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 E
·-- .......
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
y 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 F
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 G
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 H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

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.
B The writ petitions and the civil appeals are disposed of with these
directions·.

N.P.V. Petition & Appeals disposed of.
(