2003 (1) TMI 715 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds U.P. Public Services Act amendments, affirms Tribunal's powers

Public Services Tribunal Bar Versus State Of U.P. & Another.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, and its amendments, dismissing the appeals ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional Validity of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 and its Amendments2. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature3. Power of the Tribunal to Grant Interim Relief4. Appointment of Administrative Members as Vice-ChairmanSummary:1. Constitutional Validity of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 and its Amendments:The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the vires of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, and upheld the constitutional validity of the Act and its subsequent amendments. The amendments were made to address the increasing workload of civil courts and to provide quick and inexpensive justice to public servants.2. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature:The State Legislature was found competent to enact the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, and its amendments under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The legislative competence was not questioned in these appeals.3. Power of the Tribunal to Grant Interim Relief:The amendments to the Act, specifically sub-sections (5-B) and (5-C) of Section 5, were challenged for taking away the Tribunal's power to grant interim relief in cases of suspension, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, termination, compulsory retirement, reversion, and adverse entries. The Court upheld these provisions, stating that interim relief should not be the whole relief that the workmen would get if they succeeded finally. The Court noted that judicial review of such orders is available by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.4. Appointment of Administrative Members as Vice-Chairman:The validity of Section 3, especially the appointment of an Administrative Member as Vice-Chairman, was challenged. The Court upheld the provisions, noting that the appointment of the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen (Judicial and Administrative), and members must be made in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. This was in line with the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in Sanjai Kumar Srivastava's case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, and its amendments, finding no merit in the appeals. The provisions were not arbitrary and did not violate Articles 14, 16, or any other provisions of the Constitution. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.