JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has applied for recalling the following order passed by the Bench on 13-8-87 : "The petitioner has got an alternative remedy by approaching Public Services Tribunal. As such the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy." 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner U. P. Public Services Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter raised in this writ petition because Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 which is the only section under the Act enabling presentation of a claim before the Public Services Tribunal, does not apply to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has no alternative remedy at the hands of the Public Services Tribunal. The writ petition should, therefore, be heard on merits by this Court. The learned counsel for the State controverted this contention. Relevant facts may be mentioned. As a result of 1980-81 competitive examination for the Provincial Civil Services and allied services, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 64 on the combined merit list of the successful candidates. He had given his preference for three different services. In order of preference given by him his first option was for the post of SDM, second option was for the post of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer and the third option was for the post of Regional Employment Officer. Selection and posting was made for 16 posts of Asstt. Regional Transport Officers. The Public Services Commission recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Regional Employment Officer and on no other post having regard to the position of successful candidates in order of merit. The petitioner was accordingly posted as Regional Employment Officer. Two of the candidates, who were selected on the post of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer, did not take up the assignments and it was later on that their candidature was cancelled. The petitioner prays for his appointment on one of those two posts of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer for which post he had given his second option. The petitioner had made this request for his selection and posting against the post of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer since the date of his appointment in government service. It is a fact that he is already, on the basis of the aforementioned competition and selection, holding the post of Regional Employment Officer under the State Government. The petitioner had made this request for his selection and posting against the post of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer since the date of his appointment in government service. It is a fact that he is already, on the basis of the aforementioned competition and selection, holding the post of Regional Employment Officer under the State Government. The claim of the petitioner was not accepted by the Government which informed him that his name was not recommended by the Commission for the post of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer. 3. Both the sides have referred to section 4 of U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. It is reproduced in full: "4. Reference of claims to Tribunal-If any person who is or has been public servant claims that in any matter relating to employment as such public servant his employer or any officer or authority subordinate to the employer has dealt with him in a manner which is not in conformity with any contract, or- (a) in the case of a Government Servant, with the provisions of Article 16 or Article 311 of the Constitution or with any rules or law having force under Article 309 or Article 313 of the Constitution ; (b) in the case of a servant of a local authority or a statutory corporation, with Article 16 of the Constitution with any Rules or regulations having force under any Act of Legislature constituting such authority or corporation ; he shall refer such claim to the Tribunal, and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall, subject to the provisions of the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, be final ; Provided that no reference shall, subject to the terms of any contract, be made in respect of a claim arising out of the transfer of a public servant. Provided (further) that no reference shall ordinarily be entertained by the Tribunal until the claimant has exhausted his departmental remedies under the rules applicable to him. Explanation-For the purposes of this proviso it shall not be necessary to require the claimant (in the case of a Government Servant) to avail also of the remedy of memorial to the Governor before referring his claim to the Tribunal. " 4. Relevant ingredients of section 4, their meanings and implications need to be considered. Explanation-For the purposes of this proviso it shall not be necessary to require the claimant (in the case of a Government Servant) to avail also of the remedy of memorial to the Governor before referring his claim to the Tribunal. " 4. Relevant ingredients of section 4, their meanings and implications need to be considered. (1) "Any person who is or has been a public servant" :- The petitioner was a "public servant" on the date of filing this writ petition inasmuch as he was holding the government post of Regional Employment Officer from before that date. Hence first requirement of section 4 is fulfilled. (2) "Claims that in any matter relating to employment as such public servant" :- Under this phrase all that is required is that a matter raised by a petitioner should relate to his employment as such public servant. It is not required that the petitioner should be a public servant in respect of that particular department in which he is making his claim. As the petitioner happens to be in employment as a public servant, being on the post of Regional Employment Officer, in the office of employment, his claim to another department (namely, Transport Department) even though made since the inception of his government service, will not take his claim to transport department outside the ambit of section 4. The words, " in any matter relating to employment as such public servant " widen the scope of section 4. The matter raised by him is to relate to nothing else but his employment and in no other capacity except as a public servant. These conditions are fulfilled in the instant case. In the instant case the petitioner's employer remains the same, in both the offices the employer being the State Government. 5. There is another aspect of the matter. Even according to the petitioner, it was some time after his having entered government service as Regional Transport officer on the basis of his position on the merit list of the successful candidates, that vacancy on the two posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officers had finally occurred on cancellation of the candidature of the two selected candidates for those posts. Even according to the petitioner, it was some time after his having entered government service as Regional Transport officer on the basis of his position on the merit list of the successful candidates, that vacancy on the two posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officers had finally occurred on cancellation of the candidature of the two selected candidates for those posts. It was then that the claim of the petitioner for one of the two posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officers could be said to have arisen, At that time the petitioner was a Government servant holding the post of Regional Employment Officer. The petitioner at the time of his initial appointment could hardly claim the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer despite his second option given for that post because two candidates senior to him in order of merit were found to be rightful claimants to the posts of Regional Transport Officers. The petitioner, therefore, had no claim to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer on the date he was actually appointed in the Government service. He could lay his claim to that post much subsequent to the date of his appointment in Govt., service. Hence virtually speaking it is a claim for shifting the petitioner from one Government department or office to another Government department or office. 6. Thus the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under Section 4, Consequently the impugned order of this Bench dated 13-8-87 is legal and correct. The Public Services Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matter relating to the petitioner's employment raised in this petition. The application for recall of the order dated 13-8-87, therefore, fails and is rejected. Application rejected.