Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3783 (ALL)

Shiv Naresh Mishra v. U. P. P. C. L. Lucknow

2016-11-23

RAGHVENDRA KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was an employee of respondent no.4 and was working on the post of Clerk B-Stores and he was superannuated on 31.1.2000. Further submission is that all the post retiral dues have been paid to the appellant, but payment has been made belatedly, therefore, the appellant preferred an original suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur against the present respondents for recovery of the interest accrued in favour of the appellant by virtue of belated payments. The details of which has been disclosed at page 65 of the paper book of the appeal, which is part of the plaint. 3. It has further been submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in recording the finding that the suit was not cognizable in view of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act 1976 and after framing the issue on the point of maintainability, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court vide order dated 15.3.2016 affirmed the judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 4. The controversy is confined to the fact whether any interest is chargeable on the delayed payment as alleged in table at page 65. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was the contractual obligation of the employer to make the timely payment of the amounts in the heads disclosed in the table at page 65. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Krishna Kant and others reported in 1995 (71) FLR wherein it has been propounded that where the dispute arises from general law of contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in civil court cannot be said to be not maintainable, even though such a dispute may also constitute an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2 (k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. 6. The U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 has been legislated by the Legislature with a view to establish Public Services Tribunal to deal with the cases pertaining to the employment matters of the govenrment servants and also of the employees of local authorities and government corporations and companies so that employees may get quick and inexpensive justice. 7. Section 1 of The U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 deals with the short title, extent, commencement and application. The relevant Section (4) is being extracted hereinbelow : - "(4) This section and Sections 2 and 6 shall apply in relation to all public servants while the remaining provisions shall not apply to the following classes of public servants, namely - (a) a member of a judicial service; (b) an officer or servant of the High Court or of a court subordinate to the High Court; (c) a member of the secretariat staff of any House of the State Legislature ; (d) a member of the staff of the State Public Service Commission; (e) a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947." 8. Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 deals with the bar of suits, which is also being extracted hereinbelow : - "6. Bar of suits.-(1) No suit shall lie against the State Government or any local authority or any statutory corporation or company for any relief in respect of any matter relating to employment at the instance of any person who is or has been a public servant, including a person specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (4) of Section 1. (2) All suits for the like relief, and all appels, revisions, applications for review and other incidental or ancillary proceedings (including all proceedings under Order XXXIX of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) (Act V of 1908), arising out of such suits, and all applications for permission to sue or appeal as pauper for the like relief, pending before any court subordinate to the High Court and all revisions (arising out of interlocutory orders) pending before the High Court on the date immediately preceding the appointed date shall abate, and their records shall be transferred to such Tribunal as the State Government may specify, and thereupon the Tribunal shall decide the cases in the same manner as if they were claims referred to it under Section 4 : Provided that the Tribunal shall, subject to the provisions of Section 5, recommence the proceedings from the stage at which the case abated as aforesaid and deal with any pleadings presented or any oral or documentary evidence produced in the court as if the same were presented or produced before the Tribunal. (3) All appeals pending before the High Court on the date immediately preceding the appointed date arising out of such suits shall continue to be heard and disposed of by that court as heretofore as if this Act had not come into force : Provided that if the High Court considers it necessary to remand or refer back the case under Rule 23 or Rule 25 of Order 41 of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), the Order of remand or reference shall be directed to such Tribunal as the State Government may specify instead of to the subordinate court concerned and the Tribunal shall thereupon decide the case or issue, subject to the directions of the High Court, in the same manner as if it were a claim referred to it under Section 4." 9. The controversy is regarding payment of interest on the belated payments of the amounts in the different heads of the post retiral dues, the payment whereof is the consequence of service. 10. The facts of the law relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are not identical to the facts of this case. The controversy is regarding payment of interest on the belated payments of the amounts in the different heads of the post retiral dues, the payment whereof is the consequence of service. 10. The facts of the law relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are not identical to the facts of this case. Since the dispute relating to belated payment of the post retiral dues in the heads mentioned at page 65 are the consequence of service and not the consequence of any contract, hence, the proposition of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not of much avail. 11. The learned trial Court has extracted in its order, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the similar circumstances in the Second Appeal No.373 of 2013. The Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 prohibits a suit arising out of service matter or benefits by any Court. The section start from the phraseology no suit shall lie against the State Government. The prohibition contained under Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act is absolute and unqualified. 12. The learned Courts below have rightly recorded the findings with respect to the maintainability of the civil suit. The learned Courts below have not committed any error of law in recording the findings with respect to the maintainability of the suit in the Civil Court. There appears no justification to interfere with the aforesaid observations made by the learned Courts below about the maintainability of the suit. 13. No substantial question of law arises for disposal. 14. The second appeal is bereft of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.