Supreme Court of India
U.P JAL NIGAM AND ANR. versus NARESHWAR SAHAI MATHUR AND ANR.
- Decided
- 6 October 1994
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 315 · 1994 INSC 450
- Also cited as
- (1995) 1 SCC 21
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 316, margin C
The matter relates to the promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Level II in U.P. Jal Nigam. Th U.P. Public Service Tribunal is specially constituted to consider the service grievances of the government servants of the U.P. State. When Government servants, Mr. Om Narain Dwivedi and S.C. Atri, approached the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad Bench for redressal of their service grievances, two different Benches of the High Court by orders dated March 23, 1993 and April 15, 1993 directed them to avail of the statutory alternative remedy available from the Tribunal and in case they were unsuccessful in getting the relief, to approach the High Court. The respondent, who was also a Govt. servant filed the Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench seeking relief as regards his service grievance and the High Court entertained the Writ Petition and directed the parties to complete their pleadings. The appellant filed an application to dismiss the Writ Petiton and direct the respondent to avail of the statutory remedy. The Division Bench, by the impugned order dated January 19, 1994, held that since the pleadings were complete, it was not necessary to relegate the parties to the Tribunal to avail of the statutory remedy and that, therefore, dismissed the application. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
p. 316, margin C
It is contended for the respondents by Mr. Pramod Swarup, the learned counsel for respondents that since the pleadings were complete, direction was given by the learned Chief Justice for early disposal and hence this is not a case warranting interference under Art. 136. We find no force in the contention.
p. 316, margin G
When a statutory Tnbunal was constituted specially to look into the grievances of the government servants, it is statutory obligation on the part of such government servants, first to avail of the statutory remedy. In case, they are aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the remedy under Art. 226 is always available to them. Under these circumstances, when the two Division Benches had rightly declined to entertain the Writ Petitions and directed the parties to avail of the statutory remedy, another Division Bench was wholly unjustified in entertaining the Writ Petition under the impugned order and directing its early disposal. ·
p. 317, margin A
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The High Court is requested transmit the papers to the Tnbunal. It is open to the respondents to avail of the statutory remedy to avail of the statutory remedy before the Tribunal. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 317, margin B