AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashutosh Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 and Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Shri Jai Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 04.09.2025 passed in Claim Petition No.281 of 2025 by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), whereby the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the claim petition before the learned Tribunal have been rejected.
The brief facts of the case are that the U.P. Sports College Society, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Sports Society”) was registered on 14.03.1975 under the Society Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1860”) with the object of establishing sports collages in the State of U.P. for providing education as well as specialised training of a high standard in different sports and games. The collages run by the Sports Society impart sports training and education to students from class VI to XII and it also runs the hostels for the players/students in the concerned colleges. The U.P. Sports College, Lucknow was established in the year 1975 and its nomenclature has since been changed to Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow. The Sports Society initially established the U.P. Sports College at Lucknow in the year 1975, followed by Veer Bahadur Sports College, Gorakhpur in the year 1988. In the year 1993, Sports College, Dehradun (Maharana Pratap Sports College, Dehradun) was established, which was later entrusted to the State of Uttarakhand following its creation, in view of the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The Sports Society runs and manages three sports colleges, namely, Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow; Veer Bahadur Sports College, Gorakhpur; and Major Dhyanchand Sports College, Safai, Etawah as per the averments made in the memo of writ petition.
The services of the employees and teachers of the sports colleges run by the Sports Society are governed by the provisions of the Sports College Lucknow (Teaching and Allied Staff) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1981”) and by the orders/guidelines issued by the Board of Management from time to time. The Rules, 1981 have been framed by the Board of Management of the Sports Society in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 7(1) of the Rules of the Sports Society.
Respondent No.2 in the present writ petition, namely, Harvir Singh S/o Late Pyara Singh, was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher (Football) vide appointment order dated 30.06.1994 issued by the Principal, Sports College, Dehradun with the approval of the Chairman, Board of Management, Sports Society. After the reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the formation of the State of Uttarakhand, respondent No.2 opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh and, consequently, was transferred and permanently relived from Sports College, Dehradun to Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow vide order dated 06.08.2001. He joined Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow on 07.08.2001 as Assistant Teacher (Football). His services were confirmed vide order dated 12.04.2005 and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2023. Certain disputes arose with regard to the salary and pension of some employees of Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, following the detection of discrepancies in their pay fixation. The pay of the employees concerned, including respondent No.2 was re-fixed after rectification of the discrepancies in their salary fixation. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 17.09.2024, 19.11.2024 and 05.12.2024, whereby his salary was rectified following re-fixation and subsequent orders passed for the recovery of the excess payments made to him, respondent No.2 filed Claim Petition No.281 of 2025 (Harvir Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) before the Tribunal, challenging the aforesaid orders. He also sought directions for the grant of grade pay of Rs.4600/-, Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- in the respective pay scales of Rs.9300-34800 and refund of the amount deducted from his post retiral dues and other consequential reliefs.
The petitioner herein contested the claim petition before the Tribunal by raising a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability and filed the preliminary objection on 01.05.2025. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 04.09.2025, rejected the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner and held the claim petition to be maintainable on the reasoning that the appointment of respondent No.2 was made in compliance with the notification issued by the State Government and the expenditure of the sports college in which respondent No.2 was employed as a teacher was borne by the Sports Department of the State Government. It further observed that only the management of the College was associated with the Management Committee of the Sports Society and, as such, respondent No.2 fell within the category of “Public Servant” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1976”). The learned Tribunal held that merely because the management of the College was associated with the Sports Society, it could not be said that respondent No.2 was not a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.
Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashutosh Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present writ petition, while challenging the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal has submitted that the appointing authority of respondent No.2 is the Principal of Sports College, Dehradun with the approval of the Chairman of the Sports Society. He has further submitted that the salary and other expenses of the college are paid by the Sports Society out of the grant-in-aid received from the State Government and, hence, respondent No.2 does not fall within the purview of the definition of “Public Servant” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.
It has further been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the administration and management of the College vest in the Board of Management of the Sports Society and the employees of the Sports Society are neither Government employees nor public servants. Therefore, the claim petition filed before the learned Tribunal is not maintainable.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Pitamber reported in 2010 SCC OnLine All 1550, particularly paragraphs 3 and 21, to submit that the employees of Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow are not Government employees and do not hold civil posts in the civil services. As such, the claim petition is not maintainable before the learned Tribunal.
It has also been contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the claim/relief sought by respondent No.2 in the claim petition cannot be termed as “service matter” as defined under Section 2 (bb) of the Act, 1976, since respondent No.2 is no longer in service and has retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. As such, the claim petition filed by him seeking the aforesaid reliefs is not maintainable.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that all the expenses of Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow are borne by the State Government and the said College is fully funded by the State Government. As such, respondent No.2 falls within the ambit of the term “Public Servant”, being an employee of the College who receives his salary from the State Government.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Writ-A No.63708 of 2014 : Roychan Abraham vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors decided on 26.02.2019.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the claim of respondent No.2 pertains to the illegal action of the authorities in wrongly revising his salary, which relates to his service conditions. As such, the claim petition seeking the reliefs in question is maintainable before the Tribunal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the records, the issues that fall for consideration are, firstly, whether respondent No.2, who was working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Football) at Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, run and managed by the Sports Society, falls within the purview of the term “Public Servant” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976; and, secondly, whether the relief sought by respondent No.2 in the claim petition regarding the revision and re-fixation of his pay after retirement can be termed a “service matter” as defined under Section 2(bb) of Act, 1976, so as to render the claim petition maintainable before the Tribunal.
Before adverting to the first issue, it would be proper to examine the second issue that whether the term “service matter”, as defined under Section 2(bb) of the Act, 1976 does not encompass within its ambit disputes/claims regarding the revision and re-fixation of pay. We are of the considered view that the objection by the petitioner before the Tribunal to such extent is completely misconceived, as claims relating to pay fixation, arrears of salary, revision of pay scales, etc., directly relates to the conditions of service and necessarily fall within the term “service matter”. The issue of wrong pay fixation is a continuing wrong, adversely affecting the employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 has held that wrong fixation of pay is a continuing wrong, giving rise to a fresh cause of action every month. The aforesaid principal of law also applies to a pensioner whose monthly pension is adversely affected due to wrong pay fixation, consequently affecting the pension. Hence, the objection in this regard is without any basis and is hereby rejected.
Now coming to the first issue that whether the teachers working in sports colleges run by U.P. Sports Colleges Society are “Public Servant” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976, it would be proper to examine the status of the U.P. Sports Colleges Society as well as the sports colleges run by it for arriving to any such conclusion.
The U.P. Sports Colleges Society is a registered society under the provisions of the Act, 1860, having its own Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations with the primary objective of establishing sports college in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As per the Memorandum of Association of the Society, its objectives, at the time of registration, included establishing sports colleges in Uttar Pradesh; taking necessary steps for the efficient management and administration of such colleges; prescribing policies for general education, coaching, physical education, sports and games and the administration of the colleges; purchasing, taking on lease, accepting as a gift or licence, or otherwise acquiring any land or building necessary and convenient for the Society; constructing or altering buildings as may be necessary for the Society; selling, leasing, exchanging or otherwise transferring property of the society; and obtaining grants from the State Government or the Central Government, or raising funds from other sources, for the promotion of such sports colleges, among other objectives.
As per the Memorandum of Association, the Minister of Sports, Government of U.P. is the Chairman of the Board of Management of the Society, while other officials, including the Secretary of the Sports Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, are members of the Board of Management. The Principal of Sports College, Lucknow is also a member and its ex-officio Secretary. The Rules and Regulations of the Uttar Pradesh Sports Colleges Society further detail the powers of the Board of Management, which include the authority of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Board to discharge executive functions relating to the affairs of the Board. The Rules and Regulations also empower the Board to sanction the annual budget of the Sports Colleges, including matters relating to the appointment, dismissal and removal of the Principals of the Sports Colleges as well as the confirmation, appointment, removal or dismissal of teaching and coaching staff and other staff of equivalent status. This indicates that the appointing and disciplinary authorities of the Principals, teaching and coaching staff and other staff of equivalent status of the Sports Colleges fall within the domain of the Board of Management.
The appointment order annexed to the writ petition also leaves no doubt that the appointment of respondent No.2 was approved by the Board of Management on 28.06.1994, whereupon the Principal of Sports College, Dehradun issued the office order dated 30.06.1994 appointing respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Teacher (Football). The confirmation letter dated 12.04.2005 further indicates that respondent No.2 was confirmed in the service with effect from 13.07.1995 pursuant to the order of the Secretary, Managing Committee, U.P. Sports Colleges Society, Lucknow. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal while passing the order dated 04.09.2025 that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to a notification issued by the State Government, is misconceived and contrary to the record. The Rules, 1981, which govern the service conditions of the teaching and allied staff of the Sports College, Lucknow, also indicate that the Principal of the College is the appointing authority of the teachers of the Colleges.
Now, coming to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, 1976, it would be proper to examine the provisions of Section 2(b) and Section 2(bb) of the Act, 1976, which are reproduced hereinbelow :
“ 2(b) “public servant” means every person in service or pay of -
(i)the State Government ; or
(ii)a local authority not being a Cantonment Board; or
(iii)any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government (including any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty per cent of paid up share capital is held by the State Government) but does not include-
(1)a person in the pay or service of any other company;
(2)a member of the All India Services or other Central Services.
(bb)“Service matter” means a matter relating to the conditions of service of a public servant.”
The term “Public Servant” has been defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976 to mean a person in the service of or in the pay of the State Government, a local authority other than a Cantonment Board, or any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government. However, it does not include a person in the service of or in the pay of any other company in which less than 50% of the paid-up share capital held by the State Government, or a member of an All India Service or other Central Services. Thus, for a person to fall within the definition of “Public Servant”, such person must be in the service of or in the pay of any of the authorities or entities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.
It is not in dispute that respondent No.2, while working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Football), was in the service of the College, i.e., Guru Govind Singh Sports College, which is run by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society, a society registered under the Act, 1860. The appointment order dated 30.06.1994 in respect of respondent No.2 was issued by the Principal of Sports College, Dehradun, after approval by the Board of Management of the Society on 28.06.1994. Thus, it cannot be disputed that respondent No.2 was in service of the Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow run and managed by U.P. Sports Colleges Society and was working as an Assistant Teacher (Football) in one of the colleges run by the Sports Society. Thus, it cannot be said that he was in service of any of the authorities/entities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.
Further it has to be examined whether respondent No.2 was in pay of the State Government, local authority, or any other corporation, as referred in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976. The Memorandum of Association of the Sports Society, as well as the Rules and Regulations referred hereinabove, indicates that the colleges run by the Sports Society are to be maintained with the assistance of the State Government or the Central Government, or through funds raised from the other sources for the promotion of such sports colleges. The Clause 3(Vii) of the Memorandum of Association of the U.P. Sports College Society is reproduced hereinbelow :
“3(vii) To obtain grants from State Government or Central Government or raise funds from other sources for promotion of such Sports Colleges.”
The Rules and Regulation of the Sports Society, annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure-3, refer to Board of Management under Rule 4 and the functions of the Board of Management under Rule 5. Rule 7(2)(c) confers upon the Board of Management the power to sanction the annual budget of the Sports College. Rule 7 is reproduced hereinbelow :
“7.(1) Board will have all powers which may be necessary or expedient for carrying out the objects of the Society as set out in the Memorandum of Association and for the management and administration of the sports colleges.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred on the Board by sub-rule (1) above the board shall have the following powers :-
(a)To prescribe scheme of coaching in various items of sports and games, to provide physical education and to prescribe administrative policy pertaining to the sports colleges.
(b)To make, adapt and vary, from time to time rules for conducting the business of the Board and the administration of the sports colleges.
(c)Sanction annual budget of the sports colleges.
(d)Appointment, dismissal and removal of Principals of sports colleges.
(e)Confirmation, appointment, removal and dismissal of Teaching and Coaching staff or staff of equivalent status of the sports colleges.
(f)Disposal of appeals/petitions from staff mentioned in clauses (d) and (e) above.
(g)To obtain grants from State or Central Government or raise funds from other sources.
Provided that any action taken or expenditure incurred with the approval of Chairman, prior to its first meeting shall be accepted by the Board of Management when formed as having been validly done and incurred.”
Rules 10, 11 and 12 provide for the maintenance of the income and property of the Sports Society, as well as the maintenance of accounts and other relevant records. The Rules 10, 11 and 12 are reproduced hereinbelow :
“10.The income and property of the Society, however, derived shall be applied towards promotion of the objects thereof as set forth in the Memorandum of Association. No portion of the income and property of the Society shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by way of dividends, bonus or otherwise to persons who have been members of the Society or to any of them or to any person claiming through them of any of them provided that nothing therein contained shall prevent the payment in good faith of remuneration to any member thereof or other person in return for any services rendered to the Society.
11.All contracts and other instruments relating to the Society shall be expressed to be made in the name of the Society and shall be executed on behalf of the Society by the Vice-Chairman of the Society and all instruments relating to Immovable property shall be executed by him.
Provided, however, that the Agreement Form to be executed by parents/guardians of students may be signed on behalf of the Society by the Principal of the college-cum-Secretary of the Management Board.
12.The Society shall maintain proper accounts and other relevant records and prepare an annual statement of accounts including the balance sheet in such forms as may be prescribed by the Board. The accounts of the Society shall be audited annually by the Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, U.P. Allahabad.”
The Board of Management of the Sports Society, including its Chairman, comprises government officials, except for the Principal of the Sports College, Lucknow, who is an ex-officio member-cum-Secretary of the Board. The scheme of the Memorandum of Association of the Sports Society clearly reflects that the U.P. Sports College Society is an independent and autonomous body having a Board of Management comprising officials of the State Government. However, this does not, in any manner, dilute the status of the Sports Society as an independent and autonomous body.
The documents annexed to the writ petition and brought on record before this Court also indicate that the State Government releases funds on annual basis, in accordance with the sanctioned budget under the head “31-Grant-in-Aid - General Salary”. One of the documents filed as Annexure-4 is the letter dated 29.04.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Sports Department to the Director, Sports U.P., Lucknow, which indicates the release of funds for the financial year 2022-23 for three sports colleges in the State of U.P., namely, Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow; Veer Bahadur Singh Sports College, Gorakhpur; and Sports College Safai, Etawah. The said letter further indicates that an amount of Rs.2,11,82,000/- was released for Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, under the head “Grant-in-Aid-General (Salary)”. Similarly, another letter dated 20.04.2023 has been annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure-5, which also indicates the release of fund amounting to Rs.6,83,13,000/- to Sports College, Lucknow (Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow).
The General Rules for Grants-In-Aid contained in Financial Handbook Volume 5, Part I, provide for grant-in-aid to a person or a body that is independent of the Government. Such grants cannot made to an organisation established by the Government through a resolution or an executive order, as such organisation does not have a separate legal status of its own and functions merely as a limb of the Government. The relevant Rules 369-A is reproduced hereinbelow :
“369-A. The payment of various classes of grants to local bodies and institutions, e.g. contributions to hospitals and dispensaries, educational grants-in-aid, contributions for the maintenance of roads, etc., will be regulated, subject to the following instructions, by the general or special orders of Government sanctioning each class of payment. [See also paragraph 209].
NOTES—(1) Instructions regarding maintenance of a register of grant are contained in the annexure referred to in Note (1) below para 209.
NOTE—(2) (a) The general principle of grant-in-aid is that it can be given to a person or a body which is independent of the Government. One Department of the Government cannot make a grant-in-aid to another Department of the same Government. Similarly, a grant-in-aid should not be given to an organisation set up by the Government by a resolution or an executive order since such an organisation does not have a separate legal status of its own and functions only as a limb of the Government. Either the expenditure of such bodies should be treated as normal Government expenditure and provided for in the budget as such or steps should be taken to secure a separate corporate status for the organisation by getting it registered under the Registration of Societies Act, etc.
(b)It is not permissible for a grantee institution, organisation, etc. to entrust the implementation of the scheme or work for which grant-in-aid is intended, to another institution, organisation, etc. and to divert the grant-in-aid received from Government as assistance to the latter institution, organisation, etc. Such diversion of grants-in-aid, though for utilisation on the same or similar objects, amounts to misutilisation of the grants-in-aid. The sanctioning authority should ensure that a specific condition is laid down in the sanction orders prohibiting the grantee institution from diverting the grant-in-aid and entrusting the execution of the scheme for which the grant is made to another institution or organisation. In cases where after having received the grant-in-aid from Government, the grantee institution itself is not in a position to execute or to complete the assignment, it should be required to refund forthwith to Government, the entire amount of the grant-in-aid received by it. In order to ensure that this condition can be enforced through a Court of Law, in the event of its breach, it should be incorporated in the agreement bond executed by the grantee institution.
Exception—If the grantee institution has branches and their existence has been taken into account while making the grant-in-aid; or if the grant has been given with the specific object that the grantee institution will divert it among other organisations doing similar work in accordance with the rules framed by Government, then there will be no objection to the grant being diverted by the grantee to its branches or such other organisations.
Sitapur Eye Hospital and Kusht Nivaran Sangh are the examples of such institutions.”
The aforesaid Rule 369-A, contained in the Financial Handbook Volume 5, Part I, explicitly indicates that the financial aid provided to the petitioner college is a grant-in-aid under the General Rules for Grant-in-Aid, which is given only to a person or body independent of the Government, and that such funds can be utilised only for the specified purposes.
In view of the aforesaid fact that the petitioner College is run by a Society and receives grant-in-aid from the State Government, its status is at par with that of other educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government.
Thus, from the records made available with the writ petition, the contents of which have not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.2, it is apparent that the sports colleges run by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society are controlled and managed by the Society and the sports colleges receives grant-in-aid from the State Government to meet its expenses. It can, therefore, be concluded that the U.P. Sports Colleges Society is an independent and autonomous body that controls and runs the three sports colleges in the State of U.P. including Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow with the aid and assistance of financial grants received periodically from the State Government. The teachers working in these sports colleges are the employees of the respective colleges, who are appointed by the Principal of the college with the approval of the Board of Management of the U.P. Sports College Society. The salaries of these teachers are also paid by the sports colleges out of the grants and financial assistance received from the State Government.
The next question that arises is whether, in such circumstances, it can be said that the teachers of these sports colleges are in the pay of the State Government. This Court is of the view that the teachers are paid salaries by the sports colleges, which are run and managed by the Board of Management of the Society, out of the grants received from the State Government for the maintenance of these sports colleges under the General Rules for Grant-In-Aid. Such grants can be extended only to a person or body independent of the Government and having a separate legal status. Thus, it cannot be said that the teachers are in pay of the State Government.
In the case of State of U.P. Another vs. Chandra Shekhar Singh decided on 25.02.2022 passed in Matters under Article 227 No.2020 of 2018, a Single Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the issue with reference to Section 6 of the Act, 1976, which bars suits seeking relief in respect of the service conditions of teachers employed in educational institutions and the claim of a teacher for arrears of salary against an institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. It was held by the Court that a teacher of an educational institution is under the control of the Committee of Management and not the State Government and, therefore, cannot be considered a “Public Servant” within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976. The relevant paragraphs 25 and 26 of Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:
“25.From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that what is required for a person to be called as a ''public servant' is that a person should be in service of pay of State Government or a local body not being a Cantonment Board or any other Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government. A teacher of recognized aided educational institution is definitely neither State Government employee nor, employee of Local Authority. An Educational Institution recognized under the Intermediate Education Act is neither a corporation nor, a company as defined in sub clause (iii) of Claus (b) of Section 2. An educational institution is run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and recognition is accorded to the courses and certificate issued by such educational institutions to appear in examination to be conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate. It is when the State grants-in-aid to the educational institution that for the purposes of Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act , 1971 (for short Act, 1971 and The U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 (for short Act, 1978) respectively are made applicable to such institutions.
26.A teacher of educational institution is on the pay-role of committee of management and not of the State Government. The grant that is received by the management includes grant for salary and that is why salary bill is cleared under the signature of the Manager on a privately registered society who has been recognized as such under the Intermediate Education Act, 1971 or under the Basic Education Act, 1972 as the case may be. Thus, a teacher of an educational institution cannot be considered to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act 1976 and so the first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. ”
The facts of the present case are almost identical to those of Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra) with the distinction that, in the present case, the Collage is run and controlled by the Board of Management of the Sports Society, the members of which are State Government officials, except for the ex-officio Secretary, who happens to be the principal of the College.
The term “local authority”, as referred to in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976, has not been defined in the Act, 1976. The term “local authority” has been defined under Section 4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, to mean a Municipal Board, Nagar Palika, Nagar Mahapalika, Notified Area Committee, Town Area Committee, Zila Parishad, Cantonment Board, Kshettra Samiti, Gaon Sabha, or any other authority constituted for the purpose of local self-government or village administration, or legally entitled to or entrusted by the State Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund.
From the definition of the term “local authority” under Section 4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, it is clear that the Sports Society cannot be termed a “local authority” as referred to in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976, as the Sports Society is not an authority constituted for the management of a Municipal Board or any other such local authority.
Now, the next question that arises is for consideration that whether the U.P. Sports College Society can be regarded as a “corporation” owned or controlled by the State Government, so as to bring the teachers working in sports colleges within the ambit of the term “Public Servant” under Section 2(b)(iii) of the Act, 1976.
The term “corporation” has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, as an entity (usually a business) having authority under law to act as a single person, distinct from the shareholders who own it and having the right to issue stock and exist indefinitely; or a group or succession of persons established in accordance with legal rules as a legal or juristic person having a legal personality distinct from the natural persons who constitute it, existing indefinitely apart from them, and possessing the legal powers conferred upon it by its constitution.
The term has also been defined in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 9, paragraph 1201, to mean a body of persons (in the case of a corporation aggregate) or an office (in the case of a corporation sole) recognised by law as having a personality distinct from the separate personalities of the members of the body or from the personality of the individual holding the office in question for the time being.
The issue as to whether a society registered under the Act, 1860, is a corporation came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Illachi Devi (D) by LRs. and Others v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India and Others: (2003) 8 SCC 413. Relying upon the judgment in Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State of Delhi (Now Delhi Administration and Another), AIR 1962 SC 458, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a society registered under the Act, 1860, is not a corporation. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Illachi Devi (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:
“A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a body- corporate as is the case in respect of a company registered under the Companies Act. In the view of the matter, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a juristic person. The law for the purpose of grant of a probate or Letter of Administration recognises only a juristic person and not mere conglomeration of persons or a body which does not have any statutory recognition as a juristic person.
It is well known that there exists certain salient differences between a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, on the one hand, and a company corporate, on the other, principal amongst which is that a company is a juristic person by virtue of being a body corporate, whereas the society, even when it is registered, is not possessed of these characteristics. Moreover, a society whether registered or unregistered, may not be prosecuted in criminal court, nor is it capable of ownership of any property or of suing or being sued in its own name. ”
In this regard, reference may also be made to the Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporations Act, 1975, which encompasses within its ambit statutory bodies established or constituted under any Act of Uttar Pradesh, except those governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The U.P. Sports Colleges Society has not been established under any Act of the State of Uttar Pradesh and, as such, does not have the status of a corporation governed by the aforesaid Act.
Thus, in view of the above, the irrefutable conclusion can be drawn that the U.P. Sports College Society is an independent and autonomous body registered under the Act, 1860, irrespective of the fact that the members of its Board of Management are government officials and does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.
The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the teachers working in the sports colleges run by the Society are not “Public Servants” in the service of or in the pay of the State Government, as they are employees of the sports colleges and are paid salaries out of the grant-in-aid received by the sports colleges under Rule 369-A, contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume 5, Part I. Neither the U.P. Sports College Society nor the colleges run by it fall within the ambit of a “local authority”, as they have not been constituted as a unit of local self-government or village administration for the purpose of managing municipal or local affairs, as contemplated under Section 4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, which defines the term “local authority”. Further, the U.P. Sports Colleges Society also does not qualify as a “corporation”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Illachi Devi (supra).
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, namely, the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Roychan Abraham (supra), pertains to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to whether a private institution imparting education performs a public duty so as to make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The said Full Bench Judgment deals with the maintainability of a writ petition and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the issue concerns the maintainability of a claim petition before the Tribunal in light of the definition of the term “Public Servant” under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976. The jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal cannot be enlarged merely on grounds of convenience, equity, or the public character of the employer. Its jurisdiction must be traceable to the express provisions of the enactment under which it has been constituted. We could not find any provision in the Act, 1976 that would remotely suggest that teachers employed in colleges run and administered by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society are public servants as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the teachers of the sports colleges run by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society are not public servant as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976, and, as such, the claim petition filed before the Tribunal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.281 of 2025 is set aside and the proceedings pending in Claim Petition No.281 of 2025 are also quashed. It is left open to respondent No.2 to agitate his grievance arising out of the orders dated 17.09.2024, 19.11.204 and 05.12.2024 regarding re-fixation of pay and recovery before any other appropriate forum, including by filing a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.