B.K.ROY & U.S.TRIPATHI, JJ. - (1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the judgment and order dated July 13, 1988, passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, (Respondent No. 1) in Claim Case No. 335/T/V/80 (as contained in Annexure 10).
(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the claim petition filed by Respondent No. 2 for setting aside the order dated May 20, 1976, passed by the Asstt. Regional Manager of the petitioner, terminating the services of Respondent No. 2 as a Conductor has been allowed on the ground that the Asstt. Regional Manager lacked authority with a further direction that he shall be deemed to be continued in service with all consequential benefits in relation to pay and other allowances etc.
(3.) With reference to the statements made in paragraph Nos. 19 to 24 of the writ petition it was contended by Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel of the petitioner, that the Tribunal has committed a jurisdictional error in recording the finding of lack of authority for two reasons: (i) there was no such case set forth by Respondent No. 2 in his claim petition, and (ii)it was the Asstt. General, Manager, who was redesignated in the Corporation as Asstt. Regional Manager and thus there was no lack of authority in him while terminating the services of Respondent No. 2.;