1990 (3) TMI 360 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the termination of services of Lekhpals in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal. It also discusses the need to replace the State Tribunal with a Tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 and the location of Tribunals within the State.

Jurisdiction of High Court vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal:
The High Court examined whether its jurisdiction has been superseded by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal under U.P. Act No. 17 of 1976. The Supreme Court held that the disputes should be transferred to the Services Tribunal for resolution within six months, emphasizing the need for a Tribunal with plenary powers to ensure uniformity and efficiency in handling service disputes.

Replacement of Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal:
The Supreme Court recommended replacing the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal with a Tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 to align with evolving service jurisprudence. This new Tribunal would have comprehensive powers to address all aspects of disputes, relieving the High Court of service-related matters and ensuring a more effective resolution process.

Performance and Composition of Services Tribunal:
The analysis revealed a decline in case disposals despite an increase in the number of Tribunals, indicating inefficiency. The lack of judicial expertise in the Services Tribunal was highlighted, emphasizing the need for a sufficient number of qualified judges to ensure fair adjudication. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of judicial handling in resolving disputes effectively.

Location of Tribunals within Uttar Pradesh:
The judgment emphasized the need to establish Tribunals in various parts of Uttar Pradesh to ensure accessibility and affordability of justice. It suggested increasing the number of Tribunal benches and distributing them across different sectors based on caseload and population density. The aim is to make the redressal forum easily accessible to all, promoting cost-effective and convenient resolution of service-related grievances.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions and civil appeals were disposed of with directions to transfer the disputes to the Services Tribunal for prompt resolution. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing a Tribunal under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act for efficient handling of service disputes and recommended the distribution of Tribunal benches across different parts of Uttar Pradesh for enhanced accessibility to justice.