Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Radhey Shyam Pandey, was appointed as a IIIrd grade clerk in 1963 and later confirmed as IInd grade clerk in 1969. He was appointed as a stenographer on an ad-hoc basis in 1969 but was reverted to clerk in 1973. He worked as a stenographer from 1976 to 1987 but was paid only as a clerk. The Administrator appointed him as stenographer with retrospective effect from 1975, but arrears were not paid. The U.P. Public Service Tribunal allowed his application for arrears. The Kanpur Development Authority challenged this in the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal's order on the ground that the State Government, being the appointing authority under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was not impleaded. The Supreme Court heard both sides and found that the High Court's decision was based solely on non-joinder. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, directed impleadment of the State Government, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration within six months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Necessary Party - Non-Joinder - The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order on the ground that the State Government, being the appointing authority, was not impleaded as a party - The Supreme Court held that the matter should be remitted to the High Court to allow impleadment of the State Government and decide afresh - Held that the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed with direction to implead the State Government (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Tribunal's order solely on the ground of non-joinder of the State Government as a necessary party.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, directed impleadment of the State of Uttar Pradesh as third respondent, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration within six months.
Law Points
- Necessary party
- Non-joinder
- Remand
- Service law
- Arrears of salary
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 10208 of 2010
R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna
Shrish Kr. Misra for appellant, Reena Singh for respondent
Kanpur Development Authority
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order setting aside Tribunal's direction to pay arrears of salary.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought arrears of salary as stenographer and consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Appellant was not paid salary as stenographer despite working in that capacity.
Previous Decisions
U.P. Public Service Tribunal allowed appellant's application for arrears; High Court set aside that order on ground of non-joinder of State Government.
Issues
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Tribunal's order solely on the ground of non-joinder of the State Government.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he worked as stenographer but was paid clerk's salary.
Respondent argued that services were centralized under Section 5-A and State Government was necessary party.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court's order was based solely on non-joinder of a necessary party; therefore, the matter should be remitted to allow impleadment and fresh adjudication.
Judgment Excerpts
Since the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the State Government has not been impleaded as a party in the proceedings, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
The State of Uttar Pradesh is ordered to be impleaded as the third respondent in C.M.W.P. No.6637 of 1992 and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh.
Procedural History
Appellant appointed as clerk in 1963, confirmed in 1969, ad-hoc stenographer in 1969, reverted to clerk in 1973. He worked as stenographer from 1976 to 1987 but paid as clerk. Administrator appointed him as stenographer retrospectively from 1975. Tribunal allowed his application for arrears in 1991. Kanpur Development Authority filed writ petition; High Court set aside Tribunal's order in 2010. Appellant appealed to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973: Section 5-A
