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 claimed that between 1976 and 1987 he worked as a stenographer but was paid only as a clerk. In 1988, the Administrator appointed him as stenographer with retrospective effect from 1975. The appellant sought arrears of salary and consequential benefits. The U.P. Public Service Tribunal allowed his application and directed payment of arrears. The Kanpur Development Authority challenged this before the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal's order on the ground that the services of stenographers were centralised under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and the State Government, being the appointing authority, was a necessary party but had not been impleaded. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, noted that the High Court's decision was based solely on the non-joinder of the State Government. The Court held that the proper remedy was to implead the State Government and remand the matter for fresh consideration, rather than dismissing the petition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, directed the impleadment of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a third respondent, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal within six months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Necessary Party - Impleadment - The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order on the ground that the State Government, being the appointing authority for centralised services, was not impleaded - The Supreme Court held that the proper course was to implead the State Government and remand the matter for fresh consideration, rather than dismissing the petition - The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the High Court with directions to implead the State Government and decide afresh (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
- Impleadment
- Service law
- Arrears of salary
- Centralised services
