Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 149322 (ALL)

KIRAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/7174/2025 · 2025-07-07

Attau Rahman Masoodi, Shree Prakash Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38224-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7174 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kiran Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. It is surprising to note that the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of all the remedies available to the petitioner. Admittedly, a representation was made by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on 11.12.2023 before institution of the claim petition assailing the order dated 12.10.2023. The claim petition was admitted by the Tribunal on 9.1.2024 in terms of the following order:- "9/1/24 Heard. Admit. Issue notices to OPs for filing CA/WS and objection on I.R. Steps within a week. List on 04/04/2024." Pleadings were exchanged before the Tribunal. The matter is stated to have come up for final hearing on 12.3.2025 whereafter the same was decided on 26.3.2025. Learned Tribunal, while dismissing the claim petition, took note of Section 4(5) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976, which reads as under:- "The Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit a reference unless it is satisfied that the public servant has availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules, regulations or contract as to redressal of grievances." Based on the said provision, the Tribunal has observed as under:- "There is clear provision which means that a reference of petition in this Tribunal can only be filed when all the remedies available have been exhausted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner also his representation dated 11.12.2023 is pending before the appropriate authority, so the petitioner has to get decided this representation first and then he can file a petitioner before the Tribunal." As has been pointed out hereinabove that the claim petition was already admitted on 9.1.2024 as a consequence whereof the consequences of Section 4(4) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 is extracted as under:- "Where a reference has been admitted by the Tribunal under sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules or regulation or any contract as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject mater of such reference pending immediately before such admission shall abate, and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules, regulations or contract." A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it amply clear that once a reference is admitted any pending representation prior to the date of admission, is abated. In these circumstances, it was not open to the Tribunal to have dismissed the claim petition as premature once the same was admitted on 9.1.2024. The Tribunal while passing the order has somehow omitted the aforesaid provision of the Act which was applicable in a given situation. We equally gather lapse on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner who has no where stated in the writ petition that the fact of admission of reference on 9.1.2024 was pointed out before the Tribunal at the time of final hearing of the case. This reflects nothing but a lapse of duty on the part of the learned counsel who has even not clarified the position before this Court in the writ petition. Be that as it may, the order passed by the Tribunal for what has been observed hereinabove, does not stand to the test of law. Once the reference was admitted, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have decided the claim petition on merits in the light of the pleadings already on record. We, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. It is expected that the claim petition is decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh, J.) (A.R. Masoodi, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench