Anshuman Singh - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. 4, Lucknow, dated 24-11-1988 rejecting the claim petition of the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner filed Claim Petition under section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to promote the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax with effect from 31-7-1964, Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax from 25-7-1976, Member, Sales Tax Tribunal from 3-10-1980 and cross his efficiency bar from 24-1-1965 and arrears to be paid from due date with 24 per cent interest. THE petitioner further prayed by moving an amendment application in the claim petition that he may be confirmed as Assistant Commissioner from 22-1-1973 and appointed as Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax (Selection Grade) from 22-8-1973 and his pension be refixed accordingly. The claim petition of the petitioner was contested by the respondents on the ground that since the petitioner's performance was, not found satisfactory, he was neither confirmed nor allowed to corss the efficiency bar. Subsequently the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was decided by order dated 9-10-1979 and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Accordingly his case was re-considered and he was given original seniority and allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1-4-1972. A decision was also taken to promote him as Assistant Commissioner and he was promoted as such. It was alleged by the respondents that only confirmed Assistant Commissioners could be promoted as Deputy Commissioners Sales Tax but before the petitioner's case could be taken up for consideration, he retired on 28-2-198J. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No, 84 of 1981 in which the reliefs claimed were the same which were claimed by the petitioner in the claim petition filed by him before the Tribunal. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10-2-1981 and as such the claim petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Tribunal after considering the various decisions cited by the petitioner as well as the Presenting Officer on behalf of the respondents came to the conclusion that the claim petition filed by the petitioner was barred by the principles of res-judicata in view of the fact that the writ petition filed by the petitioner for the same relief has been dismissed by this Court on 10-2-1981. The petitioner appeared in person and has argued the case before me. I have also heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The sole question to be determined in the instant revision is whether the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the same was barred by the principles of res judicata instead of deciding the same on merits. Mr. Chauhan vehemently urged that since the Writ Petition No. 84 of 1981 filed by him in this Court was dismissed in limine and no reasons for dismissing the same were given by this Court, the decision in the said writ petition could not operate as res judicata and in view of this fact the Tribunal should have decided the claim of the petitioner on merit. For proper appreciation of the arguments advanced by the petitioner it is pertinent to mention to the actual order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 84 of 1981 which is as under :- "We do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine". According to the petitioner the order passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition is not an order on merit. He further contended that the order is not a speaking order and no reasons have been assigned by this Court. I am constrained to say that I find myself unable to accept the argument advanced by the petitioner because the order passed by this Court clearly indicates that the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition applied its mind to the facts of the case and found that there was no merit in the petition. Once the court found that the petition was devoid of any merit, it cannot be argued that the order is not on merit. At the most it may be said that the order passed by this Court is a laconic order but I am of the definite view that the order passed by this Court is an order passed on merit. In case the petitioner was not satisfied with the order passed by this Court, he should have preferred Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India against the order dated 10-2-1981 rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner but instead of doing so he chose to file a claim petition before the Tribunal for the same relief which had been claimed by him in Writ Petition No. 84 of 1981. In case the writ petition filed by the petitioner would have been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, then in that case the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal could be decided on merit. Since the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merit, the Tribunal could not sit in over the judgment of the High Court.
(3.) THE petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in Hoshnak Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1328, THE Virdhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. THE Government of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 1196, Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute, AIR 1986 SC 2105. In my opinion the aforesaid decisions are of no help to the petitioner so far as the present case is concerned because the question involved in the present petition is whether the Tribunal inspite of the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court on merit could have decided the claim of the petitioner on merit. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the argument advnaced on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the order passed by this Court dated 10-2-1981 on the writ petition filed by the petitioner in this Court I am of the definite view that the Tribunal was wholly justified in dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner as barred by the principles of res judicata and the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law which may require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result the petition fails and is accordingly rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition rejected.;