- (1.) BRIJESH Kumar, J. This petition has been preferred against the order of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner for interim relief moved in a claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal against the order of cancellation of his promotion. The Tribunal relying upon Section 5-B of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act ex pressed the view that since no interim relief can be granted in the matters relat ing to reduction in rank or reversion of a public servant, therefore, it had no juris diction to allow the application for interim relief.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Coun sel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel and they agree that since the question involved is short, the petition itself may be finally disposed of at this stage. A perusal of Section 5-B of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act shows that a restriction has been placed on the jurisdic tion of the Tribunal providing that it shall have no power to pass an interim order in respect of an order of suspension, dismiss al, removal, reduction in rank, termina tion, compulsory retirement or reversion of a public servant. When a restriction is placed the provision is to be strictly con strued. Such provisions cannot be given liberal interpretation. It is a question relating to ouster of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to settle the disputes of public servants. Therefore, in our view, the restriction to exercise the jurisdiction should be strictly confined to the nature of the orders specified under Section 58 of the Act. It is a different matter that conse quence of an order of cancellation of promotion may be that it results in rever sion of a person but consideration for can cellation of an order could be different, may be in a given case for the reason to correct any mistake or any other reason. Thus, the nature of the order being dif ferent, without taking into account the consequence of the order, we are, there fore, of the view that the Public Services Tribunal would be competent to consider a case for grant of interim relief where the order of promotion has been cancelled and may go into the question as to whether cancellation of promotion has any legal basis or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision (1998) 1 UPLBEC 23, Vishwamitra Yadav v. U. P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and Ors. . The above noted decision is not exactly on the point but there are some observations to the effect that the order of cancellation is an order of different nature. As a result of discussion held above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal dated 6- 8-1998 con tained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to reconsider the application for interim relief on merits and pass any appropriate orders as it may deem proper. No order as to costs. W. P. allowed. .;