IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 83 of 2009 R.D. Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others …Respondents. Mr. Beena Pande, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 4. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 6. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The petitioner was an employee of the U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited. After suspending him from service and holding a regular departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 26.6.1983. This is the first order, which the petitioner has assailed before this Court. Prayer made by the petitioner so as to assail the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 26.6.1983 can per se not be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (before its Lucknow Bench) by filing Writ Petition No. 4235 of 1984 so as to assail the order dated 26.6.1983. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench on 24.5.1984. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the challenge raised by the petitioner against the order dated 26.6.1983. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, wherein the petitioner had also assailed the order of his dismissal dated 26.6.1983 by filing Claim Petition Nos. 245 (T)/II/1985 and 240 (F)/III/1984. The aforesaid Tribunal had dismissed the claim raised by the petitioner vide its order dated 27.4.1995. In sum and 2 substance, the Tribunal had dismissed the claim raised by the petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal has been assailed at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. We have considered the issue of jurisdiction adjudicated upon by the Tribunal through the impugned order dated 27.4.1995. The Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to examine a service matter arising out of the employment of the petitioner with a company defined under Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. Pointedly, the Tribunal had placed reliance on Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act). Clause (b) of Section 2 of 1976 Act is being extracted hereunder :- “(b) “Public Servant” means every person in the service or pay of – (i) The State Government; or (ii) a local authority not being a Cantonment Board; or (iii) any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government (including any company as defined in Section-3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty per cent of paid up sharecapital is held by the State (Government) but does not include – (i) A person in the pay or service of any other company; or (ii) a member of the All India Services or other Central Services;.” 4. The factual position indicated in the impugned order dated 27.4.1995, rendered by the Tribunal to the effect, that the share of the State Government in U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited was only to the extent of 30 per cent, has not been disputed at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus viewed, since the share of the Government in the company, with which the petitioner was engaged, was less than 50 per 3 cent, the Tribunal had validly relied on clause (b) of Section 2 of the 1976 Act to conclude that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition raised by the petitioner to assail the order of his dismissal dated 26.6.1983. 5. No other submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 27.4.2010 Avneet