# RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1990] 2 S.C.R. 171
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1990-03-23
- **Bench:** Ranganath Misra, M.M. Punchhi, K. Ramaswamy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajendra-singh-yadav-and-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-10730
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal Act,
1976: State Services
Tribunal-Substitution of-By Tribunal under the Central Adminisj trative Tribunals Act, 1985-Manning of Services Tribunal by adequate
number of Judges of appropriate level-Increase in number of
Benches-Setting up of Branches in different parts of State-Directions
issued.
The appellants/petitioners filed Writ Petitions before the High
Court against the termination of their services as Lekhpals in the State
~-> .. of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court did not entertain the petitions on the
ground that alternate relief was available before the U .P. Public
Services Tribunals set np under U.P. Act 17 of 1976. Hence, the
appeals, by special leave/Writ Petitions.
...
Disposing of the appeals/petitions, this Court,
HELD: I. I The Services Tribunal set up under the U .P. Act No.
,..__
17 /76 should be withdrawn and an appropriate tribunal under the
· Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 should be set up. Such a
Tribunal is deemed to be one in terms of Article 323A of the Constitution. When set up, it would take away High Court's jurisdiction in
regard to service disputes, and function as its substitute. It would have
-,- plenary powers to deal with every aspect of the dispute. This would be
in accord with _the current thinking on this subject-matter at different
levels. [I73E; F-Gl
-;
1.2 A cursory analysis of yearwise institution, pendency and
disposal of cases between 1977 and 1984 before the Public Services
Tribunal shows that while institutions have sizeably fallen or remained
more or less constant, there has been rapid fall in the disposal of cases,
even though there has been increase in strength of Tribunals, and only
50 to 60% of the institutions are being attended to, which certainly
would lead accumulation. to mount up. These aspects require to be
noticed seriously. [174F-H]
171
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
172
SUPREME COl)RT REPORTS
[1990] 2 S.C.R.
1.3 Since the disputes require judicial handling, and the adjudication being essentially judicial in character, an adequate number of
Judges oftbe appropriate level should man the Services Tribunals. This
would create appropriate temper and generate atmosphere snitable_in
an adjudicatory Tribunal and the institution as well would command
the requisite confidence of the disputants. [17SB-C]
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] I SCC
124, referred to.
1.4 State of Uttar Pradesh territorially is the second largest State
in India, but populationwise comes first. Almost every part of the State
C is well advanced and service litigation in such setting is likely to arise
everywhere. Theref()re to locate the seat of the Tribunals at the State
capital is not appropriate. Keeping in view the accepted philosophy
that justice should be taken to everyone's doors, State Government
should consider increasing the number of Benches and locating them at
various sectors or depending upon the number of institution of disputes
D and pen_dency at the level of independent Commissionerate or by clubbing two or three of them together. The location of Benches would
require further examination at administrative level, but definitely, the
Tribunals should be available in different parts of the State and all the
Benches of the Tribunal should not be located at one place. [i75E-H; J76A]
E ·
The decision of the High Court in each of the cases is set aside and
:.>'
F
G
the dispute transferred to the Services Tribunal for disposal within six
months. [l 73t:-D J
CIVIL
APPELLATE/ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION: Civil
Appeals No. 1815 of 1982 etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 20. 1.1982 of the
Allahabad High Court in C.W.P. No. 2701of1981.
Shankar Ghosh, R.K. Jain, R.B. Mehrotra, Ms. Abha Sharma,
Ms. Sangita Tripathi Manda!. R.P. Singh, Harish N. Salve, D.K.
Garg, dopal Subramanium, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, C.P. Pandey, S.K
Sabharwal, M.P. Sarawala, R.S. Sodhi, D.D. Gupta, Shakil Ahmed
Syed, K.R.R. Pillai, M.A. Firoz, R.D. Upadhyay, U.S. Prasad and
C.M. Nay

## Text

RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
MARCH 23, 1990
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal Act,
1976: State Services
Tribunal-Substitution of-By Tribunal under the Central Adminisj trative Tribunals Act, 1985-Manning of Services Tribunal by adequate
number of Judges of appropriate level-Increase in number of
Benches-Setting up of Branches in different parts of State-Directions
issued.
The appellants/petitioners filed Writ Petitions before the High
Court against the termination of their services as Lekhpals in the State
~-> .. of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court did not entertain the petitions on the
ground that alternate relief was available before the U .P. Public
Services Tribunals set np under U.P. Act 17 of 1976. Hence, the
appeals, by special leave/Writ Petitions.
...
Disposing of the appeals/petitions, this Court,
HELD: I. I The Services Tribunal set up under the U .P. Act No.
,..__
17 /76 should be withdrawn and an appropriate tribunal under the
· Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 should be set up. Such a
Tribunal is deemed to be one in terms of Article 323A of the Constitution. When set up, it would take away High Court's jurisdiction in
regard to service disputes, and function as its substitute. It would have
-,- plenary powers to deal with every aspect of the dispute. This would be
in accord with _the current thinking on this subject-matter at different
levels. [I73E; F-Gl
-;
1.2 A cursory analysis of yearwise institution, pendency and
disposal of cases between 1977 and 1984 before the Public Services
Tribunal shows that while institutions have sizeably fallen or remained
more or less constant, there has been rapid fall in the disposal of cases,
even though there has been increase in strength of Tribunals, and only
50 to 60% of the institutions are being attended to, which certainly
would lead accumulation. to mount up. These aspects require to be
noticed seriously. [174F-H]
171
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
172
SUPREME COl)RT REPORTS
[1990] 2 S.C.R.
1.3 Since the disputes require judicial handling, and the adjudication being essentially judicial in character, an adequate number of
Judges oftbe appropriate level should man the Services Tribunals. This
would create appropriate temper and generate atmosphere snitable_in
an adjudicatory Tribunal and the institution as well would command
the requisite confidence of the disputants. [17SB-C]
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] I SCC
124, referred to.
1.4 State of Uttar Pradesh territorially is the second largest State
in India, but populationwise comes first. Almost every part of the State
C is well advanced and service litigation in such setting is likely to arise
everywhere. Theref()re to locate the seat of the Tribunals at the State
capital is not appropriate. Keeping in view the accepted philosophy
that justice should be taken to everyone's doors, State Government
should consider increasing the number of Benches and locating them at
various sectors or depending upon the number of institution of disputes
D and pen_dency at the level of independent Commissionerate or by clubbing two or three of them together. The location of Benches would
require further examination at administrative level, but definitely, the
Tribunals should be available in different parts of the State and all the
Benches of the Tribunal should not be located at one place. [i75E-H; J76A]
E ·
The decision of the High Court in each of the cases is set aside and
:.>'
F
G
the dispute transferred to the Services Tribunal for disposal within six
months. [l 73t:-D J
CIVIL
APPELLATE/ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION: Civil
Appeals No. 1815 of 1982 etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 20. 1.1982 of the
Allahabad High Court in C.W.P. No. 2701of1981.
Shankar Ghosh, R.K. Jain, R.B. Mehrotra, Ms. Abha Sharma,
Ms. Sangita Tripathi Manda!. R.P. Singh, Harish N. Salve, D.K.
Garg, dopal Subramanium, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, C.P. Pandey, S.K
Sabharwal, M.P. Sarawala, R.S. Sodhi, D.D. Gupta, Shakil Ahmed
Syed, K.R.R. Pillai, M.A. Firoz, R.D. Upadhyay, U.S. Prasad and
C.M. Nayar for the appearing parties.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
..
--
R.S. YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.]
173
RANG ANA TH MISRA, J. Special leave granted.
This bunch of cases either by special leave or under Article 32 of
the Co.nstitution is by a set of Lekhpals serving in the State of Uttar
Pradesh whose services have been terminated. Their Writ Petitions to
the High Court have not been entertained on the ground that alternate
relief is available before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal set up
under U.P. Act No. 17 of 1976. In the Civil Appeal arising out of
Special Leave Petition No. 8826 of 1982 the High Court examined the
question at length as to whether the jurisdiction of the High Court has
been taken away by the setting up of the Services Tribunal under the
U .P. Act. We have heard counsel for the parties at some length as
apart from this group of cases, some other cases involving the same
question have also been heard and those matters have been disposed
of excepting this bunch. On merit, we are of the view that the decisions
of the High Court shb.ild be vacated and in each case the dispute shall
'stand transferred to the Services Tribunal for disposal in accordance
with law. The Tribunal shall dispose of these cases within six months
from the date of the receipt of this order.
We are at the view, as we have already indicated elsewhere, that
the Services Tribunal set up under the U.P. Act No. 17/76 should be
withdrawn and an appropriate tribunal under the Central Administra-
. tive Tribunals Act of 1985 should be set up. Such a Tribunal if constituted would be in accord with the service jurisprudence which is
developing. Several States have already constituted such Tribunals
under the Central Act.
The Tribunal set up under the Central Act is deemed to be one in
terms of Article 323A of the Constitution. When such a Tribunal is set
A
B
c
D
E
up the High Court's jurisdiction in regard to service disputes is taken
F
away and the Tribunal functions as a substitute of the High Court.
More or less this service jurisprudence has almost gained ground and
there is no justification as to why the Services Tribunal of a different
pattern should operate in the State of Uttar Pradesh with inadequate
powers to deal with every situation arising before it. A Tribunal
set up under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act would have
G
plenary powers to deal with every aspect of the.dispute and would be
in accord with the current thinking on this subject-matter at different
levels. We are, therefore, of the view that the U.P. Services Tribunal
should be substituted by a Tribunal under the Central Administrative
Tribunals Act as early as possible in order that there may be uniformity of functioning and the High Court may be relieved of the
H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990) 2 S.C.R.
A burden of dealing with the service disputes as is the situation at
present.
B
c
In course of the hearing, a statement showing yearwise institution, disposal and pendency before the Public Services Tribunals has
been placed before us and we extract the same for convenience:
STATEMENT SHOWING THE YEARWISE DISPOSAL,
FILING AND PENDING CASES BEFORE THE PUBLIC
SERVICE TRIBUNALS
Year No. of
Opening Cases filed Total
Disposal
Closing
during year Balance
Tribunals Balance
during the
year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1977
Two
2568
4724
1744
D 1978
Three
3700
2156
6834
2710
2690
3192
3072
10534
4761
2980
5773
E
F
G
H
1979
Four
5773
1980
Five
5657
1981
Five
5658
1982
Five
1983
Five
1984
Five
6561
7915
8133
2206
2461
8483
2826
8347
2689
865 I
2290
9633
1718
10121
1988
10594
1178
5657
5658
6561
7915
8133
9416
A cursory analysis would show that while in 1977 two Tribunals only
were functioning, in 1984 as many as five Tribunals came to be set up.
The chart indicates that while institutions have sizeably fallen or
remained more or less constant, there has been rapid fall in the disposal of cases. For instance, while in 1978, 4,761 cases have been
disposed of, in the years 1982 and 1984 the numbers have been 1,718
and 1,178 respectively. Even five Tribunals in place of two have obviously not been meeting the mounting challenge of institutions.
Learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh was not able to indicate
any specific reason as to why while the strength of Tribunals went up
there was a proportionate fall in the disposals. Again we find that 50 to
60% of the institutions are being attended to which certainly would lead
accumulation to mount up. These aspects require to be noticed
seriously and the State Government should have applied its mind if
)
·-- .......
y
_,
R.S. YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.]
175
any system of review was in force. Apparently, the performance was
not being reviewed either by the Tribunal itself or by any other
agency.
We have been told that the Services Tribunal mostly consists of
Administrative Officers and the judicial element in the manning part
of the Tribunal is very small. As was pointed out by us in S. P. Sampath
Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] I SCC 124, the disputes
require judicial handling and the adjudication being essentially judicial in character it is necessary that an adequate number of Judges of
the appropriate level should man the Services Tribunals. This would
create the appropriate temper and generate the atmosphere suitable in
an adjudicatory Tribunal and the institution as well would command
the requisite confidence bf the disputants. We have indicated in the
connected matter that steps should be taken to replace the Services
Tribunals by Tribunals under the Central Administrative Tribunals
Act of 1985. That would give the Tribunal the necessary colour in
terms of Article 323A of the Constitution. As a consequence of setting
up of such Tribunals, the jurisdiction of the High Court would be
taken away and the Tribunals can with plenary powers function
appropriately. The disputes which have arisen on account of the
Services Tribunals not having complete jurisdiction to deal with every
situation arising before it would then not arise.
We have pointed out that notice has been issued in a later case
for the State's response to the question of Tribunals to be located at
different parts of the State. State of Uttar Pradesh territorially is the
second largest State in India but considering the population it comes
first. Almost every part of the State is well advanced and service
litigation in such setting is likely to arise everywhere. To locate the
seat of the Tribunals at the State capital in such a situation is not
appropriate. The accepted philosophy relevant to the question today is
that justice should be taken to everyone's doors. This, of course, is not
a statement which should be taken literally but undoubtedly the redressal forum should be available nearabout so that litigation may be
cheap and the forum of ventillating grievance may not be difficult to
approach. Keeping that in view which is a legitimate consideration it
would be appropriate for the State Government to consider, firstly,
increase in the number of Benches of the Tribunal and secondly, to
locate them not at the same station but at various sectors or depending
upon the number of institution of disputes and pendency at the level of
independent Commissionerate or by clubbing two or three of them
together. This, of course, is a matter which would require further
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 2 S.C.R.
A examination at the administrative level and, therefore, we express no
opinion regarding location of such Tribunal although we are of the
definite view that there should be Tribunals available in different parts
'7r
B
of the State and all the Benches of the Tribunal should not be located
at one place.
The writ petitions and the civil appeals are disposed of with these
directions·.
N.P.V.
Petition & Appeals disposed of.
(