STATE OF U P Vs. MUSHAMAT BEGUM SABIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel, for the appellants, Shri R.S. Tripathi and Shri M.A. Khan, learned Counsel, for the respondent. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.99 passed by the Special Additional District Judge, Kheri in Civil Appeal No. 124/98 (Musammat Sabira Begum v. State of U.P. and Anr.) setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6.8.97 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lakhimpur Kheri in original suit No. 131/91 (Musammat Sabira Begum v. State of U.P. and Anr.) alongwith CM. Application No. 1645 (S) of 1999 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The aforesaid application has been allowed today by this Court vide orders dated 1.9.2000, therefore, the appeal has been heard for the purpose of admission.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Musammat Sabira Begum had filed a Civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lakhimpur Kheri as pauper suit, stating therein that her husband was a Regular Collection Peon in Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri, who died on 22.2.1977 while he was in service. His G.P.F. was also being deducted. The service book was also maintained in the office, but she had not been given family pension for which she was entitled. The trial Court summoned the record also, but only Bill Register of July, 1977 of the Collection peons was produced through witnesses DW-1 and AAWVN-1, Sudhir Soni in which the name of the plaintiff's husband Late Hikmatullah finds place. The bills of the salary prepared for the regular collection peons was also shown, in which the name of the plaintiffs husband was also there. The learned trial Court summoned the record, but the same was not produced. Even service book of Late Hikmatullah was also not produced. The learned trial Court had given findings in favour of the plaintiff except on one issue in which it was held that Late Hikamatullah was in the regular service of the defendants and was posted on the post of Collection Peon and an inference was also drawn against the defendants for not producing other documents, but dismissed the suit on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide that said suit in view of the specific bar of Section 6 of the U.P. State Public Services (Tribunals) Act against which the present plaintiff respondent filed a Civil Appeal No. 124/98 which has been allowed on 14.5.99 while confirming the findings given in the other issue the learned First Appellate Court had given finding on the issues without jurisdiction and held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit of the appellant before that Court as the U.P. State Public Services (Tribunals) Act provides the jurisdiction of the service tribunal of an aggrieved person who is or has been a public servant. With regard to the findings of fact there is no question of interference by this Court as there are concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below. With regard to the jurisdiction, only question of interpretation of Sections 4, 5 (1) (a),and 6 of the U.P. State Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 is to be considered first of all which are quoted as under :

(3.) Perusal of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act says that only a person who is or has been a public servant should file a claim petition before U.P. Public Services Tribunal in respect of any matter relating to his employment, if such a public servant comes with a grievance that employer or any office or authority subordinate to the employer has dealt with him in a manner which is not in conformity with the provisions of law. The definition of public servant has been given in Section 2 (b) of the Act which is given as under :