AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
The petitioners had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 430 of 2019, and a Division Bench of this Court had, by its order dated 13.09.2019, dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act').
The petitioners filed Claim Petition No. 41 of 2019 before the Tribunal. They also filed an application seeking an ad-interim order.
By the order impugned in the writ petition dated 17.09.2019, the Tribunal, while issuing notices to respondent nos. 2 to 10 by registered post and to respondent nos. 11 to 77 through HOD, and directing steps to be taken within seven days, observed that the prayer for interim relief sought by the petitioner was opposed by the learned Assistant Prosecuting Officer. The Tribunal, thereafter, noted Section 5(5-A)(b) of the Act, and observed that no ad-interim relief could be granted ex-parte, without hearing the other party. Notices were directed to be issued to the respondents for objection against the interim relief application. Questioning the said order, the petitioner has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
Section 5 of the Act relates to powers and procedure of the Tribunal and, under Sub-Section (5-A) thereof, no interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner) shall be passed by the Tribunal on or in any proceedings relating to any reference unless (b) at least fourteen days' time is given to such party to file a reply, and opportunity is given to it to be heard in the matter. Under the proviso thereto, the Tribunal may dispense with the requirements of sub-clauses (a) and (b) and may, for reasons to be recorded, make an interim order, as an exceptional measure, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do for preventing any loss to the petitioner, which cannot be adequately compensated in money; but any such interim order shall, if it is not vacated earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of 14 days from the date on which it is made unless the said requirements have been complied with before expiry of the said period, and the Tribunal has continued operation of that order. The obligation cast on the Tribunal, under Section 5(5-A)(b) of the Act, is to give at least 14 days' time to the other party to file a reply; and to give them an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
Power is conferred on the Tribunal, under the proviso to Section 5(5-A)(b) of the Act, to dispense with the requirement of giving at least fourteen days' time to the other party to file a reply, to give them an opportunity to be heard in the matter, and, for reasons to be recorded, to pass an interim order as an exceptional measure. In the present case the Tribunal has, in its discretion, chosen to issue notice to the respondents, and to give them an opportunity to file their objections to the interim relief application.
Such an act of the Tribunal would not justify interference in the exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We see no reason, in such circumstances, to interfere with the said order. Suffice it to make it clear that, in case notices are served on the respondents, the Tribunal shall consider hearing the interim relief application at the earliest.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.