U.P Jal Nigam And Another v. Nareshwar Sahai Mathur And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Level II in the U.P. Jal Nigam. A specialised forum—the U.P. Public Services Tribunal—exists to adjudicate service grievances of State government employees. Two government servants, Mr. Om Narain Dwivedi and Mr. S. C. Atri, had earlier approached the Allahabad High Court; two separate Benches (orders dated 23-3-1993 and 15-4-1993) directed them first to pursue the statutory remedy before the Tribunal and, if unsuccessful, to return under Article 226.

The present respondent, also a government servant, filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of the same High Court seeking similar service-related relief. Instead of sending the matter to the Tribunal, the High Court entertained the writ and ordered completion of pleadings. When the appellant sought dismissal of the writ on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy, a Division Bench, by order dated 19-1-1994, declined the request, reasoning that pleadings were complete and prompt disposal was desirable. The appellant obtained special-leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, leading to the present decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in the presence of a statutorily constituted U.P. Public Services Tribunal, the High Court was justified in entertaining the respondent’s writ petition instead of directing the respondent to first exhaust the alternative statutory remedy.
2. Whether the completion of pleadings and the High Court’s desire for early disposal constitute sufficient grounds to bypass the statutory remedy and thereby preclude intervention under Article 136.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent’s Arguments

• Pleadings in the High Court were already complete and the learned Chief Justice had directed early disposal.
• Given this procedural stage, the case did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court underscored the mandatory nature of the statutory remedy provided by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal for service disputes involving State employees. It held that:

• The existence of a specialised Tribunal imposes a “statutory obligation” on aggrieved employees to approach that forum first.
• Judicial discipline requires consistency; two earlier Division Benches had already declined to entertain similar writ petitions, instead directing the petitioners to the Tribunal. A later Bench should not have deviated from that approach.
• The mere fact that pleadings were complete, or that the High Court had ordered expeditious disposal, could not override the statutory scheme or justify bypassing the Tribunal.
• Consequently, the respondent’s contention lacked merit, and interference under Article 136 was appropriate to restore adherence to the statutory framework.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed.

The High Court is directed to transmit the case papers to the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The respondents are granted liberty to pursue their statutory remedy before that Tribunal. No costs were awarded. The decision enforces the primacy of statutory forums for service disputes and reiterates the principle that writ jurisdiction should normally be exercised only after such remedies are exhausted.