KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in these revision applications is as to whether the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal quashing the termination order of the employee and declaring that he will continue to remain in service and will be entitled to salary and other allowances etc. can be executable by Civil Court or it is pure and simple declaratory, decree which cannot be executed and the order passed by the Tribunal will remain only on paper. Under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter known as the Act), the Tribunal is to adjudicate upon matters in respect of employees of the State Section 5 of the Act provides powers and procedure of the Tribunal. Sub -sections (6) and (7) of Section 5 of the Act, which are relevant, read as follows:

(2.) ONCE a Government Servant or employee or an employee of a statutory Corporation gets appointment he gets a particular status and the legal position is, more or less, that of a contract. In case he is deprived of his status and a declaration is given that he is entitled to some status which be has been deprived and he is placed back in the position from where he was displaced, he will continue to be entitled to hold the same status, privileges, rights and obligations attached to the same notwithstanding the intervening circumstances with which he was deprived. A declaration granted by the, Tribunal under Section 5, sub -section (6) shall be binding on the claimant and the employer as well as any other public servant. Once a declaration made by the Tribunal has been made of binding effect, one who is bound by it has to give effect to the same, and the same cannot be ignored by an employer or any, other authority and the employer is bound to respect the same and cannot raise any objection to it and if the matter has gone to a Court of law obviously it will give recognition to the same. In this connection observations made by the Hon'ble' Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari : AIR 1961 (SC) 221 may be made:

(3.) IN Ram Sarup Bhalla v. State of Punjab,, 1985 SLR 433 a Single Judge of Punjab High Court has held that declaration in respect of an employee whose services, have been terminated is executable and practically the same view has been taken by Jammu and Kashmir in the case Managing Director J. and K. Tourism v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat,, 1985 Lab IC 124 wherein it has been held that where suit for declaration that the order terminating, the services of the plaintiff is illegal and demanding further relief by claiming emoluments attached to the post is decreed, the decree is not a purely declaratory decree in nature and is executable. In the Zila Parishad, Allahabad v. Sadanand Misra, 1982 UPLB.C& EC 372 although there was no discussion on the question, but similar order passed by the Tribunal was held to be executable. The case reported in Om Prakash v. Home Department U.P. Shasan and others, 1988 UPLBC. 173 which was a case under the Contempt of Courts Act; is not of much help in the case. The Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prakash Chand v. S.S. Garewal and others : 1975 Cr LJ 679 in which after considering various cases, observed: