- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 U. P. Public Services Tribunal-V, Lucknow, to hear anc decide the Claim Petition No. 541/v/199c Kanti Prasad v. State of U. P. and anothe, expeditiously.
(2.) THE petitioner was an employee o the U. P. State Road Transport Corporatioi and he was appointed on 14-8-89. He wa charge-sheeted and after an enquiry his ser vice was terminated on 27-1-90. He filed ; claim petition against the termination orde before the Tribunal which is pending sine the last seven years. It may be mentioned that the U. P. Public Services Tribunal had initially the power to grant stay in all matters but sub sequently by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1977 Section 5 of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act was amended and Clause (5-B) was introduced which reads as follows:- " (58) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, the Tribunal shall have no power to make an interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner) in respect of an order made or purporting to be made by an employer for the suspension, dismiss al, removal, reduction in rank, termination, com pulsory retirement or reversion of a public servant and every interim order (whether by way of in junction or stay or in any other manner,), in respect of such matters, which was made by a Tribunal before the date of commencement of which su b-section and which if in force on that day, shall stand vacated. " As a result of the above amendment the Tribunal ceased to have power to grant stay in cases of suspension, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, termination, compulsory retirement or reversion of a public servant.
(3.) AS a result of the amendment the government servants against whom the ac tion referred to in Section 5 (5b) is taken have been facing great difficulties because cases are taking more and ten years by the Tribunal to decide. I am informed that the cases filed as far back in 1980 or 1982 are still pending before the Tribunal. It is evi dent that if the service of a public servant is terminated and his case is decided after ten to 15 years then even if his petition is al lowed he may have starved alongwith his family or put to some other great hardship during this period. This obviously results in great injustice. Since the Tribunal is not in a position to decide the cases very quickly then the only alternative is that the power to grant stay in the matters referred to clause (5b) of Section 5 should be restored imme diately. This will also greatly reduce the bur den of this court because it is only since the public servants cannot even apply for a stay order before the Tribunal in matters referred to in clause (5b) of Section 5 that they are compelled to approach this court and thus the burden of the Court, which is already over-burdened with seven or eight lacs cases, is greatly increased. There may be cases where the peti tion may be able to make out a very good ground for grant of stay by demonstrating that the impugned order is palpably illegal but he cannot get a stay order in view of clause (5b) of Section 5.;