Raghvendra Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was an employee of respondent no.4 and was working on the post of Clerk BStores and he was superannuated on 31.1.2000. Further submission is that all the post retiral dues have been paid to the appellant, but payment has been made belatedly, therefore, the appellant preferred an original suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur against the present respondents for recovery of the interest accrued in favour of the appellant by virtue of belated payments. The details of which has been disclosed at page 65 of the paper book of the appeal, which is part of the plaint.
(3.) It has further been submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in recording the finding that the suit was not cognisable in view of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act 1976 and after framing the issue on the point of maintainability, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court vide order dated 15.3.2016 affirmed the judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court.;