ANDREW PRAKASH Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant sued for a declaration that the termination of his services was wrongful. He also claimed arrears of salary etc. The suit was abated by the trial court in view of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. The plaintiff went up in revision but failed. He has hence come to this Court.

(2.) SECTION 6 of the Public Services (Tribunals) Act bars suits. It provides - "6. Bar of suits -(1) No suit shall lie against the State Government or any local authority or any statutory corporation or company for any relief in respect of any matter relating to employment at the instance of any person who is or has been a public servant, including a persons speci ­fied in clauses (a) to (e) to sub -section (4) of section l”.

(3.) IN the present case, it has been found that the Cantonment Higher Secondary School, Chakrata, in which the plaintiff was employed as a Biology teacher, belonged to the Cantonment Board. If the school belonged to the Cantonment Board, the plaintiff was, in law, an employee of the Cantonment Board. He was hence not a public servant as defined in the Act. The Act was not applicable to him. His suit could not hence be declared to have abated under, the provisions of the Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. The courts below committed material irregularity in abating it. In the result, the provision succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the courts below are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for disposal of the suit in accordance with law after obtaining the record of the case from the Services Tribunal if it has already been sent there. As no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties, there will be no order as to costs.