STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL, UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-5-57
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 01,2012

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Appellant
VERSUS
Public Services Tribunal, Uttaranchal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) THE private respondent was Store Keeper at ITI Piran Kaliyar, an institution, owned, controlled and managed by the State Government. He retired from his service on 31st July, 2000. There is no dispute that ITI, Piran Kaliyar is situate within the territory, which became the territory of the State of Uttarakhand, after the State of Uttarakhand was created by bifurcating a part of the State of Uttar Pradesh, by and under the Uttar Pradesh Re -organization Act, 2000. However, that bifurcation took place on 9th November, 2000, much prior thereto, the respondent retired. The respondent, therefore, did not retire from ITI Piran Kaliyar, when the same came under the authority, management and control of the State of Uttarakhand. Because the respondent was not paid his dues, which became due and payable to him on his retirement, he approached the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, which was constituted after adoption of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. While the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 authorises establishment of a Tribunal, the said Act was extended to the State of Uttar Pradesh and, accordingly, one Tribunal under the said Act could be established in any part of State of Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly, such a Tribunal was established at Lucknow. When the said Act was adopted by the State of Uttarakhand, it was made clear that the adopted Act will stand extended to the State of Uttarakhand and in terms of the adopted Act, the State of Uttarakhand too shall also be entitle to establish a Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand. Public Servant in terms of the adopted Act, thus means a person in the pay or service of the State Government of Uttarakhand. The respondent was never in the pay or in the service of State of Uttarakhand. In the circumstances, the private respondent could not approach the Tribunal, constituted by the State of Uttarakhand, after adopting the said Act. Private respondent having been an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh and, having retired from the services of the Uttar Pradesh, could only approach the Public Services Tribunal established by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the 1976 Act, which is situate at Lucknow. Despite noting the fact that, the private respondent was not an employee of the State of Uttarakhand at any point of time, and at the same time, was also not an employee of a Local Body under the control of the State of Uttarakhand, the tribunal purported to allow the claim of the respondent proceeding on the basis that since by Section 91 of the U.P. Re -organisation Act, proceedings pending have been transferred, therefore, the Tribunal at Uttarakhand was also entitled to entertain the claim petition of the private respondent. The fact remains that, Section 91 of the U.P. Re -organisation Act transferred pending proceedings. Admittedly, the claim petition which was dealt with by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, was not a pending proceedings as on the date of coming into force of the U.P. Re -organisation Act, 2000. We accordingly, allow the writ petition and, thereby quash the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition, solely on the ground that the Tribunal at Uttarakhand had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition of the private respondent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.