AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Srivastava, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naugarh, District Siddharthnagar, dated 20.2.2001 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) deciding Issue No. 2 and allowing the preliminary objection filed by the Defendant that Suit is cognizable under U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that finding of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) that petitioner is a public servant and the case of petitioner could be entertained under U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 is unsustainable in law in view of the fact that petitioner is an employee of a Degree College managed by a private Management affiliated to a University under the U.P. State Universities Act and in view of the definition of public servant u/s 2(b) of the UP, Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 petitioner cannot be said to be a public servant and as such the impugned order holding that a civil suit not maintainable and returning the same to be presented to the U.P. Public Services Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
Sri M.D. Misra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Management, in reply urged that as the petitioner was getting salary from the State Exchequer, petitioner will come within definition of public servant as defined u/s 2(b) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. He states that in all the Degree Colleges the payment of salary to the Teachers and other employees is made from the State Exchequer. Petitioner was rightly held to be a public servant and Civil Judge rightly held that suit was not maintainable to be entertainable under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 and the Suit was not maintainable.
After careful consideration of arguments of learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer Section 2(b) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 where public servant has been defined. Same is being reproduced below:
2(b) "public servant" means every person in the service or pay of
(i) the State Government; or
(ii) a local authority not being a Cantonment Board; or
(iii) any other 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 fifty per cent of paid up share capital is held by the State Government) but does not include-
(1) a person in the pay or service of any other company; or
(2) a member of the All India Services or other Central Services:
As petitioner was appointed in Shivpati Degree College Shohratgarh, Basti and his services were terminated by the Principal who is not in the employment of the State Government and petitioner was also not appointed by the State Government, but was an employee of a private Degree College recognised under the U.P. State Universities Act, he cannot be said to be a public servant.
As argued by/Sri M.D. Misra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Management, so far as payment made by State Government is concerned, Chapter Xl-A of the U.P. State Universities Act clearly provides for payment of salary to Teachers and other Employees of Degree Colleges. There are various categories of Degree Colleges including Degree Colleges maintained exclusively by the State Government and the Degree Colleges receiving grant for payment of salary of Teachers and other Employees as maintenance grant. From Section 60-P(2) and (3) of the U.P. State Universities Act it is clear that in case a College is receiving maintenance grant, the Management of the College is required to deposit In the Salary Payment Account such portion of the amount received from students a fees and also the income received from any property of the College. The U.P. State Universities Act makes it clear that in case College is receiving maintenance grant, the payment of salary is not exclusively made from the State Exchequer, but payment of salary is made from its partial contribution in Salary Account made by the Management from the fees as well as from the income of the College and, therefore, this Court does not agree with the argument of Sri M.D. Misra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Management, that the petitioner is a public servant as defined u/s 2(b) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.
In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is not a public servant as defined u/s 2(b) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 and the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naugarh, Siddharthnagar acted illegally in returning the Plaint to be presented to the U.P. Public Services Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner, who is a Class-IV (Sweeper) employee of the College, is a public servant. Impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed.
Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20th February, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) is quashed. The Trial Court is directed to decide the Suit on merits in accordance with law within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.