JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - Admit. Notice has been taken by Sri K. B. Sinha on behalf of oppositeparties 2 and 3 and by Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of oppositeparty no. 1. As only a short point is involved, I proceed to dispose of the petition finally. 2. The petitioner WBS a store coolie employed by the State Electricity Board. By a penal order dated 19574 a sum of Rs. 3600/ was ordered to be recovered from him as it was held that he was responsible for the loss of this amount to the Board. Against this order, he filed a claim petition on the ground that the order had been passed in violation of the various service rules. The Tribunal, however, held that as the petitioner was a workman he was not entitled to maintain a claim petition. Although certain rulings of this Court were cited before the Tribunal, it distinguished those rulings on the ground that in those cases the petitioners concerned were exGovernment servants on deputation with the Board. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the rulings. Although the petitioners of those cases may have been exGovernment servants serving OB deputation with the Board, yet this was not the basis of the view expressed in those cases. In Ram Krishna Yadav Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 1981 LLT (Services) 101, it was held in my judgment in para 20 of the report that employees cannot ask for any relief from the Tribunal if the relief arises out of their status as workmen, namely any relief admissible to them on the basis of Industrial Disputes Act or of any other labour law. If, however, relief was claimed on the basis of any statutory service rules, it could, certainly, be granted by the Tribunal. Although the majority in the Full Bench (per T. S. Misra, J., as he then was) disagreed with me on another point, it did not disagree with the view expressed in para 20 as stated above. My judgment, thus, expressed the views of the Full Bench on all points except on the point on which Hon'ble Misra, J. delivered his dissenting judgment. 4. What was relevant was the status of the petitioner as a public servant. My judgment, thus, expressed the views of the Full Bench on all points except on the point on which Hon'ble Misra, J. delivered his dissenting judgment. 4. What was relevant was the status of the petitioner as a public servant. Whether a claimant is a Government servant or a servant of the State Electricity Board, he is alike a public servant. It is, therefore, immaterial whether his capacity of public servant was based on Government service or on service under the Board. The difference in the factual position noticed by the Tribunal was really a distinction without any difference, so far as the instant legal issue was concerned. The view expressed by the learned Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and the order of the Tribunal dated 111284, annexure 5, is hereby quashed. The Tribunal shall now entertain the claim petition and decide it afresh in accordance with law, (Petition allowed)