MORADHWAJ CHAUHAN Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. 4, Lucknow, dated 24-11-1988 rejecting the claim petition of the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner filed Claim Petition under section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to promote the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax with effect from 31-7-1964, Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax from 25-7-1976, Member, Sales Tax Tribunal from 3-10-1980 and cross his efficiency bar from 24-1-1965 and arrears to be paid from due date with 24 per cent interest. THE petitioner further prayed by moving an amendment application in the claim petition that he may be confirmed as Assistant Commissioner from 22-1-1973 and appointed as Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax (Selection Grade) from 22-8-1973 and his pension be refixed accordingly.

(3.) THE petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in Hoshnak Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1328, THE Virdhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. THE Government of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 1196, Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute, AIR 1986 SC 2105. In my opinion the aforesaid decisions are of no help to the petitioner so far as the present case is concerned because the question involved in the present petition is whether the Tribunal inspite of the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court on merit could have decided the claim of the petitioner on merit. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the argument advnaced on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the order passed by this Court dated 10-2-1981 on the writ petition filed by the petitioner in this Court I am of the definite view that the Tribunal was wholly justified in dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner as barred by the principles of res judicata and the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law which may require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.