Chaman Lal Kala vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2173 Del

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                       Special Appeal No. 167 of 2010
Chaman Lal Kala.                                  ...........          Appellant
                                      Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another.                   ............        Respondents

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pratul Kumar, Advocate for
the appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent No. 1.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

                                 JUDGMENT

Coram: Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.

Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Appellant was an employee of Garhwal Jal Sansthan, a body corporate constituted by and under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). He retired on 31st March, 1991. After his retirement, he started getting some pension. According to him, he was entitled to get more pension. He approached the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, with a writ petition in the year 2000. In that, while Garhwal Jal Sansthan was made a party, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director, Local Bodies, were also made parties. A look in the writ petition will demonstrate that the appellant was seeking the enhanced pension not on the basis of conditions of service prescribed by Garhwal Jal Sansthan under Section 27 of the said Act; but under the conditions of service prescribed by the State Government under Section 27-A of the said Act. It is unfortunate that the writ petition was transferred to this Court when this Court had nothing to do with the writ petition, as this Court had no jurisdiction to issue a mandamus upon the State of Uttar Pradesh in relation to payment of pension of a person in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh retired on 31st March, 1991. This aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, when steps were taken to transfer the writ petition to this Court. By the

judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been dismissed for the reasons recorded therein. Hence, this appeal.

2. We are of the considered view that this Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to try the writ petition. We have two options; one is by a judicial order re-transferring the writ petition to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench and the other option is to permit the appellant to approach the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for the relief sought for. We think that the latter option will be appropriate, inasmuch as, a specific power has been granted to the Chief Justice of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court to have judicial matters transferred from one Court to the other Court by the Act creating the State of Uttarakhand. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal; but, at the same time, observe that the judgment under appeal will not be treated as res integra, inasmuch as, we are of the considered view that the Court had no jurisdiction to pronounce upon as it has pronounced. Liberty is granted to the appellant to re-approach the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. In the event, such approach is made within a period of one month from today, it shall be presumed that the appellant was prevented from taking appropriate recourse to law for the reasons indicated above from 5th January, 2000 when the said writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, until the date of re-approaching the appropriate court as above.

                   (V.K. Bist, J.)                  (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
                    30.04.2014                           30.04.2014
G