- (1.) By the Court.-Number of cases were referred to this Larger Bench. Few of them have already been disposed of and rest writ petitions, mentioned above, having similar facts and questions of law to be determined were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, by the reference to the Larger Bench no specific question was referred for determination.
(2.) In Writ Petition No. 4285 (MB) of 1999 filed on behalf of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Bar Association a direction has been sought to declare the impugned Ordinance No. 17 of 1999 as ultra vires by which Section 4(1) has been substituted in place of Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), further Section 5(5-C) has been added to the Act, with the prayer to declare Section 5(5-B) of the Act as ultra vires. It has been further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to modify the Act strictly in accordance with the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124, and L, Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, JT 1995(1) SC 454, and lastly it has been prayed that the U.P. Public Services Tribunal be given comprehensive powers to grant interim relief in all the matters relating to service disputes in the light of the recommendations and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Curt and High Court in various decisions to make the Tribunal more efficient and effective. Subsequently the impugned U.P. Ordinance No. 17 of 1999 was replaced by U.P. Act 5 of 2000. Thereafter, an application for amendment in the writ petition challenging the U.P. Act 5 of 2000 was moved which was allowed.
(3.) Writ Petition No. 748 (MB) of 1999 has been filed by Sri Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui, a practising advocate of Lucknow challenging the validity of Sections 3(5), (7) and (8) of the Act with a prayer to annul the above sections in order to remove the infirmities in the Act as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and the appointments of the members of the Tribunal be only made after consultation with the high power selection committee nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court and an advocate who is eligible to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court be also made eligible to be appointed as member of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal and the member so appointed be allowed to continue till he attains the age of 62 years and in case of Chairman and Vice-Chairman till he attains the age of 65 years.;