- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajendra Singh Yadav And Others v. State Of U.P And Others .
Factual and Procedural Background
A group of Lekhpals (village revenue officials) in the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the termination of their services. Their writ petitions were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on the ground that an alternative remedy existed before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunals constituted under U.P. Act 17 of 1976. The petitioners sought relief in the Supreme Court through special leave petitions and Article 32 writ petitions. After hearing counsel, the Supreme Court vacated the High Court’s orders and transferred all the disputes to the U.P. Public Services Tribunal for disposal within six months.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the creation of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal under U.P. Act 17 of 1976 ousts the writ jurisdiction of the High Court over service disputes.
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to entertain the Lekhpals’ writ petitions on the basis of an alternative remedy before the Tribunal.
- Whether the existing U.P. Public Services Tribunal should be replaced by a Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to ensure uniformity and plenary jurisdiction in service matters.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124; (1987) 2 ATC 82 | Service disputes are essentially judicial in nature and require adjudication by tribunals with an adequate judicial component, consistent with Article 323-A. | Relied upon to emphasise that service tribunals must be adequately staffed by judges and possess plenary powers, supporting the recommendation to replace the U.P. Tribunal with one constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that:
- The High Court’s jurisdiction is normally ousted when a tribunal constituted under Article 323-A (such as one under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985) is in place. However, the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, created by a State Act, does not fully substitute the High Court and possesses inadequate powers.
- A statistical review of the Tribunal’s performance (1977–1984) revealed that, despite an increase from two to five benches, disposals declined sharply while pendency rose. The State offered no satisfactory explanation, indicating systemic inefficiency and lack of periodic review.
- The Tribunal is predominantly staffed by administrative officers with a minimal judicial element, undermining confidence in its adjudicatory capacity. Consistent with the principles affirmed in S.P. Sampath Kumar, service disputes require a tribunal with substantial judicial participation.
- Uniformity across States, plenary jurisdiction, and relief of the High Court’s heavy service-matter docket all favour substituting the existing U.P. Tribunal with one established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
- Given Uttar Pradesh’s large territory and population, justice must be made geographically accessible. Accordingly, the Court advised the State to consider multiple benches located in different regions rather than concentrating them in the State capital.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF — The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the High Court’s orders that had declined to entertain the Lekhpals’ writ petitions.
- Transferred all related disputes to the existing U.P. Public Services Tribunal, directing it to decide the matters within six months.
- Recommended that the State of Uttar Pradesh abolish the present Tribunal and constitute a new one under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with increased judicial membership and benches located across the State.
Implications: The immediate effect is expedited adjudication of the Lekhpals’ service disputes by the Tribunal. Although the directions on restructuring tribunals are advisory, they signal judicial preference for uniform, Article 323-A-compliant tribunals and may prompt administrative reforms within Uttar Pradesh.
Ranganath Misra, J.— Special leave granted.
2. This bunch of cases either by special leave or under Article 32 of the Constitution 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 Tribunals set up under U.P Act 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 should 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.
3. We are of the view, as we have already indicated elsewhere, that the Services Tribunal set up under the U.P Act 17 of 1976 should be withdrawn and an appropriate tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 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.
4. The Tribunal set up under the Central Act is deemed to be one in terms of Article 323-A of the Constitution. When such a Tribunal is set up the High Court's jurisdiction in regard to service disputes is taken 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 Administrative Tribunals Act would have 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 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 burden of dealing with the service disputes as is the situation at present.
5. 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 Services Tribunals
Year No. of Tribunals Opening Balance Cases filed during the Year Total Disposal during year Closing Balance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1977 Two 2568 2156 4724 1744 2980 1978 Three 3700 6834 10534 4761 5773 1979 Four 5773 2710 8483 2826 5657 1980 Five 5657 2690 8347 2689 5658 1981 Five 5658 3193 8851 2290 6561 1982 Five 6561 3072 9633 1718 7915 1983 Five 7915 2206 10121 1988 8133 1984 Five 8133 2461 10594 1178 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, 4761 cases have been disposed of, in the years 1982 and 1984 the numbers have been 1718 and 1178 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 per cent 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 any system of review was in force. Apparently, the performance was not being reviewed either by the Tribunal itself or by any other agency.
6. 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 (1987) 1 SCC 124, (1987) 2 ATC 82, 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 appropriate temper and generate the atmosphere suitable in an adjudicatory Tribunal and the institution as well would command the requisite confidence of the disputants. We have indicated in the connected matter that steps should be taken to replace the Services Tribunals by Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. That would give the Tribunal the necessary colour in terms of Article 323-A 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.
7. 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 ventilating 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 examination at the administrative level and, therefore, we express no opinion regarding location of such Tribunals although we are of the definite view that there should be Tribunals available in different parts of the State and all the benches of the Tribunal should not be located at one place.
8. The writ petitions and the civil appeals are disposed of with these directions.
Alert