JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. Present appeal is against the order of learned District Judge, Mainpuri dated 30.04.1993 in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1992, State of U.P. and Ors. v. Smt. Rama Devi and Ors. arising from Suit No. 402 of 1990, Smt. Rama Devi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Smt. Rama Devi and two others filed suit No. 402 of 1990 against the defendants/appellants for the declaration that she is entitled to service benefits after the death of her husband and for the decree of monetary injunction for the payment of service benefits including pension and other benefits. Rama Devi is the widow of Bhim Singh and Km. Rani and Neetu were minor daughters. Bhim Singh was constable in P.A.C. and was posted at Aligarh. He was suspended on 22.05.1987 on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. in session trial No. 390 of 1987 he was convicted and sentenced to 4 years R.I. by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. Bhim Singh filed appeal No. 1720 of 1988 and was bailed out by this Court on 05.08.1988. Bhim Singh was murdered on 04.10.1988 while he was posted in 28th1 Battalian P.A.C. The Commandant 38th Battalian P.A.C. dismissed him on 08.12.1988 w.e.f. 13.07.1988. Plaintiff-respondents challenged the dismissal order on the ground that the dismissal order was passed without issuing show cause notice is against the principle of natural justice. Despite the application being moved by the plaintiff-respondents, no steps have been taken for granting her pension benefits and other service benefits accrued to her after the death of Bhim Singh. Notice was issued to the defendants- appellants on 06.03.1990 and, thereafter, suit has been filed.
3. On the consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, suit has been decreed and the direction has been issued to pay the retiral benefits vide order dated 10.09.1992. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order appeal No. 63 of 1992 was filed. The said appeal has been dismissed by learned District Judge vide order dated 30.04.1993. Being aggrieved by the said order, present second appeal has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Standing Counsel mainly argued on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 6 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976?
4. He submitted that under Section 6 of U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") no suit is maintainable against the State Government for any relief in respect of any matter relating to employment and thus, the suit was barred.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the order of the trial court and the order of learned District Judge. He submitted that Section 6 of the Act bars the suit at the instance of any person, who is or has been a public servant. It does not bars the suit by any other person. Present suit was not filed by the public servant but was filed by the widow and daughters of the public servant after the death of the employee. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the authorities below. Section 6 of the Act read as follows:
No suit shall be lie against the State Government or any local authority or any statutory corporation for any relief in respect of any matter relating to employment at the instance of any person who is or has been a public servant, including a person specified in Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-section (4) of Section 1.
6. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that suit against the State Government in respect of any matter relating to employment at the instance of public servant is barred. In the present case, suit was not filed by the public servant. It was filed by widow and the minor daughters after the death of public servant and, therefore, in my opinion, suit was not barred by Section 6 of the Act.
7. In the case of Smt. Kunti and Ors. v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) A.W.C., 1412 (L.B.). The claim before the Tribunal was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased public servant has been held not maintainable as it should be filed only by the public servant and not by the legal heirs. No other point has been argued. In view of above, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.