WRIT PETITION 92 of 2013 on 7 January 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition (S/B) No. 92 of 2013With Review Application No. 131 of 2019

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.

……. Petitioner

Versus

Public Service Tribunal Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner-review applicant. Mr. Rakshit Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent no.3.

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

This application is filed seeking review of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.92 of 2013 dated 09.08.2018.

2. The respondent-workman filed a claim petition before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, which was allowed by order dated 07.01.1994. At the relevant time, the workman was an employee of the UPSEB Distribution Zone. He retired from service on 30.11.1997. On the ground that the monetary benefits, which he claimed were due and payable in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 07.01.1994, were not paid, he filed Execution Application No.05 of 2011 before the Public Services Tribunal at Dehradun.

3. In its order dated 19.10.2012, the Tribunal held that it was the responsibility of the review applicant herein to take suitable action to implement the decision of the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.102/F/IV/83 date 07.01.1994. The review applicant herein was directed to comply with the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 07.01.1994 within a period of three months from the date of the order, and the matter was directed to be listed after three months. Questioning the validity of the said order, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by way of Writ Petition (S/B) No.92 of 2013, resulting in the order, review of which is now sought, being passed.

4. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel appearing for the review applicant, would submit that the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain an execution application, since the respondent-writ petitioner had retired from service in 1997 when he was serving the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board; the order, execution of which is sought, was passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal; and the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking execution of the order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal.

5. We have examined the contents of the affidavit filed by the review applicant herein, in the execution application filed before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal. No such plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction was taken therein. The order under review does not also reflect any such contention having been raised even during the course of hearing of the Writ Petition. It is for the first time, in this review proceedings, is such a contention now being urged. We see no reason, therefore, to entertain any such contention for the first time in review proceedings.

6. The Review Application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C. J.) 28.02.2020 28.02.2020

NISHANT