- (1.) M. Katju, J. The petitioner is a Land Acquisition Amin and is challeng ing the suspension order, dated 11-6-98, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the peti tion.
(2.) IN my opinion, against the im pugned order the petitioner has an alter native remedy of approaching the U. P Public Service Tribunal. It has been held in State of U. P. v. Labh Chand, AIR 1994 SC 754 (vide paragraph 15) that the U. P. Public Service Tribunal has exclusive and exhaustive jurisdiction in the matters which come within its jurisdiction. The Tribunal is a specialised body which deals with the public servants and hence the petitioner should avail of the alternative remedy before the Tribunal. In Prem Shankar Lal v. State of U. P. , 1984 (2) U. P. L. B. E. C. 1344, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the remedy before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal is an adequate and efficacious remedy. It had been urged before the Division Bench that it takes many years for a case to be decided by the Tribunal. The Division Bench repelled this argument ob serving that the same is the position in the High Court also where it takes years to decide. It was also contended before the Division Bench that the Tribunal does not have the remedy to grant stay in such mat ters and hence the remedy before the Tribunal is not efficacious. This argument was also repelled by the Division Bench relying on a Full Bench decision in Cyan Chand Bhatia v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, AIR 1966 All 57 (F. B.) and it was observed that the mere fact that there was no power to grant stay does not mean that the alternative remedy is not adequate and efficacious.
(3.) IN L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of INdia, 1997 (3) JT 589, it was held by the Supreme Court that parties should first approach the Tribunal and only after the decision of the Tribunal they can approach the High Court. No doubt this decision was in the context of the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal, but in my opinion, the same principle will also apply to the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. Hence in my opinion, the petitioner should first ap proach the U. P. Public Service Tribunal and only if he has any grievance against the order of the Tribunal he can come to the High Court. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, if any petition is filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal the same shall be decided expeditiously in ac cordance with law. Petition dismissed. .;