The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday clarified that its permission is needed before establishing the Uttar Pradesh Education Services Tribunal, which is the subject matter of an ongoing lawyers’ strike.
The division bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a PIL In Re Constitution Of Education Tribunals.
Judicial working of the Allahabad High Court that otherwise remained uninterrupted even during the pandemic has been stalled at the call of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad and Awadh Bar Association, High Court, Lucknow.
“The cause for giving the call for absention from judicial work is a proposed enactment in the name of Uttar Pradesh Service Tribunal Act, 2021,”
-the Court said.
The Act proposes establishment of a tribunal for expeditious disposal of service cases relating to teaching and non-teaching staff of the Educational Institutions receiving aid under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. As per the proposed enactment, headquarter of the Tribunal shall be at Lucknow with a bench at Prayagraj.
The Tribunal proposed to be constituted shall be having a Chairman to be appointed as per the procedure given. The Chairman shall be having a discretion to determine the days of sitting of the Tribunal at Lucknow as well as at Prayagraj for adjudication of the cases coming before it.
The fundamental grievance of both the associations is with regard to establishment of educational tribunal. As per the demand charters given to the High Court, the establishment of tribunal would not satisfy the object of expeditious disposal of the cases concerned.
The grievance of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad is that looking to the seriousness of the service matters relating to teaching and non-teaching staff of non-governmental educational institutions, the number of cases instituted and pending consideration at Allahabad, it would not be appropriate to have principal seat of the Tribunal at any other place than Prayagraj.
On availing necessary details from registry of this Court, we find that the pendency of service matters which are to be adjudicated by the proposed Tribunal is not too much.
Meanwhile, the Court has ordered for constitution of special benches, both at the principal seat in Allahabad and at the Lucknow bench, for adjudicating upon the pending cases.
On a perusal of past 20 years’ records, the Bench found that at Allahabad, 1,88,632 cases related to service matters of teaching and non-teaching staff of aided institutions were instituted and, out of that, pendency is only 33,290. Similarly, at Lucknow, 55,913 matters were instituted and 15,003 cases are pending.
“On going through the statistics available, we are of the view that the pendency of the service matters in question can be effectively reduced by constituting special bench/benches for the purpose. However, for smooth functioning of such benches, the prime requirement is participation of Advocates in proceedings”,
-the Court opined.
The Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court be requested to constitute appropriate dedicated Benches at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow for expeditious disposal of service matters related to teaching and non-teaching staff of aided institutions.
It also expressed strong displeasure at the call for strike in the following words:
“The proposed enactment is meant with an object for expeditious disposal of service matters but the absention of lawyers from judicial proceedings is causing serious injury to the disposal of such cases by the present judicial forum.”
The state government is requested to invite representatives of the Bar Associations of the Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj as well as at Lucknow to have deliberations with regard to their demands which are being agitated by different demand charters while giving the present call for assentation from judicial work.
“It is brought to our notice that the issue with regard to establishment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Tribunals is under consideration of this Court in a writ Petition filed at Lucknow, hence, we do not consider it appropriate to pass any order in that regard in this Petition for writ,” the order reads.