Anil Kumar Arya & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. L.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2 and, with their consent, these writ petitions are disposed of at the stage of admission by this common order.

The petitioners, hitherto, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing WPSB No. 369 of 2019 claiming parity with others. Learned counsel, appearing on their behalf, sought permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition afresh, since the writ affidavit was bereft of necessary particulars. Granting them liberty as sought for, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 20.08.2019.

The petitioners have again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of the present writ petitions, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay them arrears after financial up-gradation, and grade pay salary along with appropriate interest, calculating such arrears from the date on which their juniors were stepped up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme; and for a direction to revise and enhance the pensionary benefits of the petitioners along with arrears and applicable interest since 01.03.2018, after their superannuation on 28.02.2018.

The petitioners were all, hitherto, employed by the Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited, a corporation under the control of the Government of Uttarakhand. Section 2(b)(iii), of the U.P Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, defines a 'public servant' to mean, among others, every person in the service or pay of a corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, including any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act,1956 in which not less than 50% of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government. The Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited would, undoubtedly, fall within the ambit of Section 2(b)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (in short the "1976 Act"), and the petitioners would fall within the definition of a "public servant". Under Section 4(1) of the 1976 Act, subject to the other provisions of the Act, a person who is or has been a public servant, and is aggrieved by an order pertaining to a service matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make a reference of claim to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.

It is evident, therefore, that the petitioners have an effective and efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Public Services Tribunal constituted under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. While the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred, this Court would, ordinarily, refrain from exercising its discretion to entertain the writ petition, where the petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternative statutory remedy.

Since the petitioner can approach the Public Services Tribunal in this regard, we see no reason to entertain these writ petitions. Leaving it open to the petitioners to avail their remedy of approaching the Public Service Tribunal, the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.