WPSB No. 259 of 2008 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Review Application No.571/09) (Delay Condonation Application No. 6695/09) Sri Anurag Bisaria, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Sri Lalit Sharm, Advocate present for the respondent no. 3/review application. This is Delay Condonation Application (CLMA) No. 6659 of 2009 for condonation of delay in moving the Review Application (MCC) No. 571 of 2009. Heard and perused the affidavit of Daulat Ram “Arora, R.O., Uttarakhand State Seed and Certification Agency. The delay condonation applicaton is allowed. Delay is condoned. (Application No. 6659 of 2009 stands disposed of). Also, heard on Review Application (MCC) No. 571 of 2009, and perused the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 259 of 2008 in which the order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Claim Petition No. 46 of 2007, is quashed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which requires review/recall of the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by this Court, therefore, the review application is rejected. (Application No. 571 of 2009 stands disposed of). (B.S. V., J.) (P. C. Pant, J.) 08.09.2009 RMY IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 259 of 2008 With Stay Application No. 6951 of 2008 Narender Singh Verma S/O Sri Khacheru Singh, R/O Shyampuram, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …………. Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary and two others. ………….Respondents Sri Anurag Bisaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri J.P. Joshi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Date 20th October 2008 Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. 1. Heard Sri Anurag Bisaria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Joshi learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-5-2008, passed by Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, in Claim Petition No. 46 of 2007. 3. Brief facts of the case that the petitioner is an employee of the State Seed Certification Agency Dehradun, (funded by State Government), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The public Service Tribunal has held that the employee of the Society is not a government servant. As such it has no jurisdiction to hear the service matter relating to the employee of Uttarakhand State Seed Certification Agency. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that the Tribunal has ignored the provisions of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, which confers jurisdiction on it. Section 4 of the said Act provides that a person who is or has been a public servant and is aggrieved by an order pertaining to a service matter within he jurisdication of the Tribunal may make a reference of claim to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. The expression “public servant” is defined in the same Act under clause (b) of Section 2, which provides that “public savant” means every person in the service or pay of –(i) The State Government; or (ii) ……; or (iii)…….” 5. A copy of the Uttaranchal State Seed Certification Agency Rules, 2005, which is annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition shows in its Part-7 in Rule 22, it is provided that the persons employed in service of the Agency will draw the pay-scale fixed by the Government. Said Rule 22 further provides that the payment to the employees on deputation shall be made by the Government. It further provides that all regular employees shall draw the increments as provided in the Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part 2 to 4 (applicable to the Government employees). 6. In view of the above provisions, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the claim petition summarily. 7. Learned Chief Standing Counsel for has also conceded that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the petitioner is not a public servant. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-5-2008 passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Claim Petition No. 46 of 2007 is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter on merits after hearing the parties, expeditiously as far as possible. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (B.S. Verma, J.) 20-10-2008 RCP