LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government is a necessary party in a dispute regarding the pay scale of a stenographer whose services were centralized under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Radhey Shyam Pandey vs. Kanpur Development Authority
Judgment Date: 18 July 2019
Date of the Judgment: 18 July 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a High Court set aside a Tribunal’s order solely on the ground that a necessary party was not impleaded, without considering the merits of the case? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the matter of Radhey Shyam Pandey vs. Kanpur Development Authority. This case concerns a dispute over the pay scale of an employee who claimed to have worked as a stenographer but was paid as a clerk. The Supreme Court bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration after impleading the State Government as a necessary party.
Case Background
The appellant, Radhey Shyam Pandey, was initially appointed as a IIIrd grade clerk in 1963 and later confirmed as a IInd grade clerk in 1969. He was then appointed as a stenographer on an ad-hoc basis on 12 December 1969. However, he was reverted to the position of clerk on 5 July 1973. The appellant claimed that from 1 January 1976 to 30 November 1987, he worked as a stenographer but received the salary of a IInd Grade clerk. He sought arrears of salary and allowances as a stenographer, which were not considered by the authorities.
On 16 December 1988, the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, appointed the appellant as a Stenographer with retrospective effect from 1 July 1975. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal No.II, Lucknow, seeking arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1963 | Appellant appointed as IIIrd grade clerk. |
| 23 October 1969 | Appellant confirmed as IInd grade clerk. |
| 12 December 1969 | Appellant appointed as stenographer on ad-hoc basis. |
| 5 July 1973 | Appellant reverted to the position of clerk. |
| 19 September 1973 to 24 August 1974 | Appellant on leave without pay. |
| 1 January 1976 to 30 November 1987 | Appellant claims to have worked as stenographer but paid as clerk. |
| 16 December 1988 | Appellant appointed as Stenographer with retrospective effect from 1 July 1975. |
| 13 November 1991 | U.P. Public Service Tribunal directs authorities to pay arrears of salary as payable to stenographer. |
Course of Proceedings
The U.P. Public Service Tribunal No.II, Lucknow, allowed the appellant’s application on 13 November 1991, directing the authorities to pay him arrears of salary as a stenographer. Aggrieved by this order, the Kanpur Development Authority filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, observing that the services of stenographers were centralized by adding Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, effective from 22 October 1984. The High Court held that the State of Uttar Pradesh was the appointing authority and since it was not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal’s order was unsustainable. The High Court thus approved the order of the Kanpur Development Authority.
Legal Framework
The High Court referred to Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which was introduced with effect from 22 October 1984. This section centralized the services of stenographers, making the State of Uttar Pradesh the appointing authority. The High Court observed that since the State Government was not impleaded as a party, the order of the Tribunal could not be sustained.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant contended that he had been discharging his duties as a stenographer throughout his service but was paid the pay scale of a clerk.
- He argued that despite working as a stenographer, he was not given the corresponding pay and benefits.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The Kanpur Development Authority argued that the services of stenographers were centralized under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, making the State Government the appointing authority.
- They contended that since the State Government was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s order was not valid.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Discrepancy in Pay |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: State Government as Necessary Party |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Tribunal’s order solely on the ground that the State Government was not impleaded, without considering the merits of the case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Tribunal’s order solely on the ground that the State Government was not impleaded? | The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter back to the High Court. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered the merits of the case after impleading the State Government as a party. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly mention any authorities (cases or books) that were relied upon by the court.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that he worked as a stenographer but was paid as a clerk. | The Court did not make a specific finding on this submission, but it recognized the need to address the merits of the case. |
| Respondent’s submission that the State Government was a necessary party. | The Court agreed that the State Government was a necessary party and directed its impleadment. |
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, stating that the High Court should have considered the merits of the case after impleading the State Government. The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to be impleaded as the third respondent in the writ petition before the High Court. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court requested the High Court to give sufficient time to the appellant to file an additional counter affidavit and to dispose of the matter within six months.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair hearing of the case on its merits. The Court recognized that while the High Court was correct in identifying the State Government as a necessary party, it should not have dismissed the case solely on this ground without considering the substantive issue of the appellant’s claim for arrears of salary as a stenographer. The Court emphasized the importance of addressing the merits of the case after impleading all necessary parties.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Fairness | 60% |
| Merits of the Case | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning focused on the procedural aspect of the case, emphasizing that the High Court should not have dismissed the matter solely on the ground of non-impleadment of a necessary party without addressing the merits of the case. The Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that procedural requirements are met while also ensuring that substantive justice is not denied. The Court’s decision is based on the following reasoning:
- The High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s order solely on the ground that the State Government was not impleaded.
- The High Court should have impleaded the State Government and then considered the merits of the case.
- The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration after impleading the State Government.
The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the appellant’s claim but focused on the procedural lapse by the High Court. The Court’s decision ensures that the appellant’s case will be heard on its merits after the State Government is made a party to the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The High Court should not set aside a Tribunal’s order solely on the ground of non-impleadment of a necessary party without considering the merits of the case.
- When a necessary party is not impleaded, the High Court should direct the impleadment of the party and then proceed to consider the case on its merits.
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of addressing substantive issues after fulfilling procedural requirements.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The State of Uttar Pradesh is to be impleaded as the third respondent in C.M.W.P. No.6637 of 1992.
- The matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration afresh.
- The High Court is requested to provide sufficient time to the appellant to file an additional counter affidavit.
- The High Court is requested to dispose of the matter preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a High Court should not set aside a Tribunal’s order solely on the ground of non-impleadment of a necessary party without considering the merits of the case. The Supreme Court clarified that the proper course of action is to implead the necessary party and then proceed to decide the case on its merits. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural requirements should not overshadow the need for substantive justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Radhey Shyam Pandey vs. Kanpur Development Authority underscores the importance of addressing the merits of a case, even when procedural requirements are not initially met. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had dismissed the case due to the non-impleadment of the State Government. The Supreme Court directed the impleadment of the State Government and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration, ensuring that the appellant’s claim for arrears of salary as a stenographer would be heard on its merits. This judgment highlights the principle that procedural fairness should not come at the cost of substantive justice.