JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are challenging their suspension order. The petitioners have an alternative remedy before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, as held by the Supreme Court In State of U. P. v. Labh Chand. AIR 1994 SC 754. In paragraph 15 of the Judgment, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Tribunal has exclusive and exhaustive Jurisdiction in such matters, and hence the petitioners should avail of their alternative remedy.
3. In this connection, It may also be mentioned that earlier a Division Bench of this Court in Prem Shankar Lal v. State of U. P., 1984 (2) UPLBEC 1344. had also dismissed a writ petition of a public servant on the ground that there is an adequate and efficacious remedy before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. Before the Division Bench, it had been urged that the alternative remedy is not speedy, and normally considerable delay takes place in disposal of the cases by the Tribunal. This contention was rejected and it was observed that in this Court also, writ petitions are being disposed of after 8 or 9 years. It had then been argued that the Tribunal has no power to grant interim orders In certain kind of cases and hence the remedy is not efficacious. The Division Bench also rejected this contention, relying on Gyan Chand Bhatia v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, AIR 1966 All 57 (FB) and held that the mere fact that there is no power to grant interim order does not mean that the alternative remedy is not adequate and efficacious.
4. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.