AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Gupta, C.J.—After hearing learned Counsel for the parties we condone the delay in filing the appeal and treat the appeal as having been filed in time.
Delay condonation application is allowed.
Special Appeal No. 229 of 2008
Heard.
By the impugned order dated 12 September 2008, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant/writ Petitioners on the ground that the Appellants had the alternative remedy of filing claim petition before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal in terms of UP. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (1976 Act). Even though the writ petition filed by the Appellants related to and arose out of a service matter, the Tribunal constituted under the 1976 Act did not have any jurisdiction with respect to the Appellants or the subject matter of the writ petition in view of the clear exemption created by Section 1 (4) (a) of 1976 Act, wherein it has been clearly stipulated that except Sections 1, 2 & 6, the remaining provision of 1976 Act shall not apply to such a Public Servant who is a member of a Judicial Service. Since the Appellants admittedly are the members of a Judicial Service, Section-4 of 1976 Act in terms of the aforesaid Section 1 (4) (a) is not applicable to their cases and, therefore, the Tribunal did not have anyjurisdiction to entertain or hear and dispose of the claim petition with respect to the Appellants or the dispute relating to their service matter. The writ petition filed by the Appellant was, therefore maintainable.
Apparently the aforesaid provision of law was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge because the writ petition was dismissed in the absence of the Appellant/writ Petitioners.
For the foregoing reasons this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside with all consequences.
The writ petition is revived to its original petition for being disposed of in accordance with law.