Principal Guru Govind Singh Sports College Kursi Road Gudamba Lucknow vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lko. Thru. Registrar And 4 Others

A.F.R.
Reserved on 21.07.2026
Delivered on 28.10.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 3923 of 2026
Principal Guru Govind Singh Sports College Kursi Road
Gudamba Lucknow
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lko. Thru. Registrar and 4
others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Shahi, C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shikhar Anand, C.S.C., Jai
Kumar
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Ashutosh Shahi, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for

2
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
the State-respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 and Shri Shikhar Anand,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Shri
Jai Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the
order dated 04.09.2025 passed in Claim Petition No.281 of
2025 by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” ), whereby the
preliminary objections raised by the petitioner with regard to
the maintainability of the claim petition before the learned
Tribunal have been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the U.P. Sports
College Society, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “Sports
Society” ) was registered on 14.03.1975 under the Society
Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1860” )
with the object of establishing sports collages in the State of
U.P. for providing education as well as specialised training of a
high standard in different sports and games. The collages run
by the Sports Society impart sports training and education to
students from class VI to XII and it also runs the hostels for
the players/students in the concerned colleges. The U.P.
Sports College, Lucknow was established in the year 1975 and
its nomenclature has since been changed to Guru Govind
Singh Sports College, Lucknow. The Sports Society initially
established the U.P. Sports College at Lucknow in the year
1975, followed by Veer Bahadur Sports College, Gorakhpur in
the year 1988. In the year 1993, Sports College, Dehradun
(Maharana Pratap Sports College, Dehradun) was established,

3
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
which was later entrusted to the State of Uttarakhand
following its creation, in view of the provisions contained in
the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The Sports
Society runs and manages three sports colleges, namely, Guru
Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow; Veer Bahadur Sports
College, Gorakhpur; and Major Dhyanchand Sports College,
Safai, Etawah as per the averments made in the memo of writ
petition.
4. The services of the employees and teachers of the
sports colleges run by the Sports Society are governed by the
provisions of the Sports College Lucknow (Teaching and Allied
Staff) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules,
1981” ) and by the orders/guidelines issued by the Board of
Management from time to time. The Rules, 1981 have been
framed by the Board of Management of the Sports Society in
exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 7(1) of the Rules
of the Sports Society.
5. Respondent No.2 in the present writ petition,
namely, Harvir Singh S/o Late Pyara Singh, was initially
appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher (Football) vide
appointment order dated 30.06.1994 issued by the Principal,
Sports College, Dehradun with the approval of the Chairman,
Board of Management, Sports Society. After the
reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the
formation of the State of Uttarakhand, respondent No.2 opted
for the State of Uttar Pradesh and, consequently, was
transferred and permanently relived from Sports College,

4
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
Dehradun to Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow vide
order dated 06.08.2001. He joined Guru Govind Singh Sports
College, Lucknow on 07.08.2001 as Assistant Teacher
(Football). His services were confirmed vide order dated
12.04.2005 and he retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.04.2023. Certain disputes arose with
regard to the salary and pension of some employees of Guru
Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, following the detection
of discrepancies in their pay fixation. The pay of the
employees concerned, including respondent No.2 was re-fixed
after rectification of the discrepancies in their salary fixation.
Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 17.09.2024, 19.11.2024
and 05.12.2024, whereby his salary was rectified following re-
fixation and subsequent orders passed for the recovery of the
excess payments made to him, respondent No.2 filed Claim
Petition No.281 of 2025 (Harvir Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others) before the Tribunal, challenging the aforesaid orders.
He also sought directions for the grant of grade pay of
Rs.4600/-, Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- in the respective pay scales
of Rs.9300-34800 and refund of the amount deducted from
his post retiral dues and other consequential reliefs.
6. The petitioner herein contested the claim petition
before the Tribunal by raising a preliminary objection
regarding its maintainability and filed the preliminary
objection on 01.05.2025. The learned Tribunal, after hearing
the parties, vide order dated 04.09.2025, rejected the
preliminary objections raised by the petitioner and held the

5
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
claim petition to be maintainable on the reasoning that the
appointment of respondent No.2 was made in compliance
with the notification issued by the State Government and the
expenditure of the sports college in which respondent No.2
was employed as a teacher was borne by the Sports
Department of the State Government. It further observed that
only the management of the College was associated with the
Management Committee of the Sports Society and, as such,
respondent No.2 fell within the category of “Public Servant” as
defined under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,
1976” ). The learned Tribunal held that merely because the
management of the College was associated with the Sports
Society, it could not be said that respondent No.2 was not a
public servant within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act,
1976.
7. Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Shri Ashutosh Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the present writ petition, while challenging the
order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal has
submitted that the appointing authority of respondent No.2 is
the Principal of Sports College, Dehradun with the approval of
the Chairman of the Sports Society. He has further submitted
that the salary and other expenses of the college are paid by
the Sports Society out of the grant-in-aid received from the
State Government and, hence, respondent No.2 does not fall
within the purview of the definition of “Public Servant” as
defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.

6
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
8. It has further been submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the administration and
management of the College vest in the Board of Management
of the Sports Society and the employees of the Sports Society
are neither Government employees nor public servants.
Therefore, the claim petition filed before the learned Tribunal
is not maintainable.
9. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this
Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Pitamber
reported in 2010 SCC OnLine All 1550 , particularly
paragraphs 3 and 21, to submit that the employees of Guru
Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow are not Government
employees and do not hold civil posts in the civil services. As
such, the claim petition is not maintainable before the learned
Tribunal.
10. It has also been contended by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the claim/relief sought by
respondent No.2 in the claim petition cannot be termed as
“service matter” as defined under Section 2 (bb) of the Act,
1976, since respondent No.2 is no longer in service and has
retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. As such, the
claim petition filed by him seeking the aforesaid reliefs is not
maintainable.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 has submitted that all the expenses of Guru
Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow are borne by the State
Government and the said College is fully funded by the State

7
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
Government. As such, respondent No.2 falls within the ambit
of the term “Public Servant”, being an employee of the College
who receives his salary from the State Government.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed
reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Writ-A
No.63708 of 2014 : Roychan Abraham vs. State of U.P. and 3
Ors decided on 26.02.2019.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
submitted that the claim of respondent No.2 pertains to the
illegal action of the authorities in wrongly revising his salary,
which relates to his service conditions. As such, the claim
petition seeking the reliefs in question is maintainable before
the Tribunal.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon going through the records, the issues that fall for
consideration are, firstly, whether respondent No.2, who was
working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Football) at Guru
Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, run and managed by
the Sports Society, falls within the purview of the term “Public
Servant” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976; and,
secondly, whether the relief sought by respondent No.2 in the
claim petition regarding the revision and re-fixation of his pay
after retirement can be termed a “service matter” as defined
under Section 2(bb) of Act, 1976, so as to render the claim
petition maintainable before the Tribunal.

8
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
15. Before adverting to the first issue, it would be
proper to examine the second issue that whether the term
“service matter”, as defined under Section 2(bb) of the Act,
1976 does not encompass within its ambit disputes/claims
regarding the revision and re-fixation of pay. We are of the
considered view that the objection by the petitioner before
the Tribunal to such extent is completely misconceived, as
claims relating to pay fixation, arrears of salary, revision of pay
scales, etc., directly relates to the conditions of service and
necessarily fall within the term “service matter”. The issue of
wrong pay fixation is a continuing wrong, adversely affecting
the employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R.
Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC
628 has held that wrong fixation of pay is a continuing wrong,
giving rise to a fresh cause of action every month. The
aforesaid principal of law also applies to a pensioner whose
monthly pension is adversely affected due to wrong pay
fixation, consequently affecting the pension. Hence, the
objection in this regard is without any basis and is hereby
rejected.
16. Now coming to the first issue that whether the
teachers working in sports colleges run by U.P. Sports
Colleges Society are “Public Servant” as defined under Section
2(b) of the Act, 1976, it would be proper to examine the status
of the U.P. Sports Colleges Society as well as the sports
colleges run by it for arriving to any such conclusion.

9
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
17. The U.P. Sports Colleges Society is a registered
society under the provisions of the Act, 1860, having its own
Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations with
the primary objective of establishing sports college in the
State of Uttar Pradesh. As per the Memorandum of
Association of the Society, its objectives, at the time of
registration, included establishing sports colleges in Uttar
Pradesh; taking necessary steps for the efficient management
and administration of such colleges; prescribing policies for
general education, coaching, physical education, sports and
games and the administration of the colleges; purchasing,
taking on lease, accepting as a gift or licence, or otherwise
acquiring any land or building necessary and convenient for
the Society; constructing or altering buildings as may be
necessary for the Society; selling, leasing, exchanging or
otherwise transferring property of the society; and obtaining
grants from the State Government or the Central
Government, or raising funds from other sources, for the
promotion of such sports colleges, among other objectives.
18. As per the Memorandum of Association, the
Minister of Sports, Government of U.P. is the Chairman of the
Board of Management of the Society, while other officials,
including the Secretary of the Sports Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, are members of the Board of
Management. The Principal of Sports College, Lucknow is also
a member and its ex-officio Secretary. The Rules and
Regulations of the Uttar Pradesh Sports Colleges Society
further detail the powers of the Board of Management, which

10
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
include the authority of the Chairman and the Secretary of the
Board to discharge executive functions relating to the affairs
of the Board. The Rules and Regulations also empower the
Board to sanction the annual budget of the Sports Colleges,
including matters relating to the appointment, dismissal and
removal of the Principals of the Sports Colleges as well as the
confirmation, appointment, removal or dismissal of teaching
and coaching staff and other staff of equivalent status. This
indicates that the appointing and disciplinary authorities of
the Principals, teaching and coaching staff and other staff of
equivalent status of the Sports Colleges fall within the domain
of the Board of Management.
19. The appointment order annexed to the writ
petition also leaves no doubt that the appointment of
respondent No.2 was approved by the Board of Management
on 28.06.1994, whereupon the Principal of Sports College,
Dehradun issued the office order dated 30.06.1994 appointing
respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Teacher (Football).
The confirmation letter dated 12.04.2005 further indicates
that respondent No.2 was confirmed in the service with effect
from 13.07.1995 pursuant to the order of the Secretary,
Managing Committee, U.P. Sports Colleges Society, Lucknow.
Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal while
passing the order dated 04.09.2025 that the petitioner was
appointed pursuant to a notification issued by the State
Government, is misconceived and contrary to the record. The
Rules, 1981, which govern the service conditions of the
teaching and allied staff of the Sports College, Lucknow, also

11
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
indicate that the Principal of the College is the appointing
authority of the teachers of the Colleges.
20. Now, coming to the statutory provisions contained
in the Act, 1976, it would be proper to examine the provisions
of Section 2(b) and Section 2(bb) of the Act, 1976, which are
reproduced hereinbelow :
“ 2(b) “public servant” means every person in 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 share
capital is held by the State Government) but does
not include-
(1) a person in the pay or service of any other
company;
(2) a member of the All India Services or other
Central Services.
(bb) “Service matter” means a matter relating to the
conditions of service of a public servant.”
21. The term “Public Servant” has been defined under
Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976 to mean a person in the service of
or in the pay of the State Government, a local authority other
than a Cantonment Board, or any other corporation owned or
controlled by the State Government. However, it does not
include a person in the service of or in the pay of any other

12
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
company in which less than 50% of the paid-up share capital
held by the State Government, or a member of an All India
Service or other Central Services. Thus, for a person to fall
within the definition of “Public Servant”, such person must be
in the service of or in the pay of any of the authorities or
entities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.
22. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2, while
working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Football), was in the
service of the College, i.e., Guru Govind Singh Sports College,
which is run by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society, a society
registered under the Act, 1860. The appointment order dated
30.06.1994 in respect of respondent No.2 was issued by the
Principal of Sports College, Dehradun, after approval by the
Board of Management of the Society on 28.06.1994. Thus, it
cannot be disputed that respondent No.2 was in service of the
Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow run and managed
by U.P. Sports Colleges Society and was working as an
Assistant Teacher (Football) in one of the colleges run by the
Sports Society. Thus, it cannot be said that he was in service of
any of the authorities/entities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the
Act, 1976.
23. Further it has to be examined whether respondent
No.2 was in pay of the State Government, local authority, or
any other corporation, as referred in Section 2(b) of the Act,
1976. The Memorandum of Association of the Sports Society,
as well as the Rules and Regulations referred hereinabove,
indicates that the colleges run by the Sports Society are to be

13
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
maintained with the assistance of the State Government or
the Central Government, or through funds raised from the
other sources for the promotion of such sports colleges. The
Clause 3(Vii) of the Memorandum of Association of the U.P.
Sports College Society is reproduced hereinbelow :
“3(vii) To obtain grants from State Government or
Central Government or raise funds from other
sources for promotion of such Sports Colleges.”
24. The Rules and Regulation of the Sports Society,
annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure-3, refer to
Board of Management under Rule 4 and the functions of the
Board of Management under Rule 5. Rule 7(2)(c) confers upon
the Board of Management the power to sanction the annual
budget of the Sports College. Rule 7 is reproduced
hereinbelow :
“7. (1) Board will have all powers which may be
necessary or expedient for carrying out the
objects of the Society as set out in the
Memorandum of Association and for the
management and administration of the sports
colleges.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
powers conferred on the Board by sub-rule (1)
above the board shall have the following powers :-
(a) To prescribe scheme of coaching in various
items of sports and games, to provide physical
education and to prescribe administrative policy
pertaining to the sports colleges.

14
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
(b) To make, adapt and vary, from time to time
rules for conducting the business of the Board and
the administration of the sports colleges.
(c) Sanction annual budget of the sports
colleges.
(d) Appointment, dismissal and removal of
Principals of sports colleges.
(e) Confirmation, appointment, removal and
dismissal of Teaching and Coaching staff or
staff of equivalent status of the sports colleges.
(f) Disposal of appeals/petitions from staff
mentioned in clauses (d) and (e) above.
(g) To obtain grants from State or Central
Government or raise funds from other sources.
Provided that any action taken or expenditure
incurred with the approval of Chairman, prior to its
first meeting shall be accepted by the Board of
Management when formed as having been validly
done and incurred.”
25. Rules 10, 11 and 12 provide for the maintenance of
the income and property of the Sports Society, as well as the
maintenance of accounts and other relevant records. The
Rules 10, 11 and 12 are reproduced hereinbelow :
“10. The income and property of the Society,
however, derived shall be applied towards
promotion of the objects thereof as set forth in the
Memorandum of Association. No portion of the
income and property of the Society shall be paid or
transferred, directly or indirectly, by way of
dividends, bonus or otherwise to persons who have
been members of the Society or to any of them or
to any person claiming through them of any of
them provided that nothing therein contained shall

15
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
prevent the payment in good faith of remuneration
to any member thereof or other person in return
for any services rendered to the Society.
11. All contracts and other instruments relating to
the Society shall be expressed to be made in the
name of the Society and shall be executed on
behalf of the Society by the Vice-Chairman of the
Society and all instruments relating to Immovable
property shall be executed by him.
Provided, however, that the Agreement Form to be
executed by parents/guardians of students may be
signed on behalf of the Society by the Principal of
the college-cum-Secretary of the Management
Board.
12. The Society shall maintain proper accounts and
other relevant records and prepare an annual
statement of accounts including the balance sheet
in such forms as may be prescribed by the Board.
The accounts of the Society shall be audited
annually by the Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, U.P.
Allahabad.”
26. The Board of Management of the Sports Society,
including its Chairman, comprises government officials,
except for the Principal of the Sports College, Lucknow, who is
an ex-officio member-cum-Secretary of the Board. The
scheme of the Memorandum of Association of the Sports
Society clearly reflects that the U.P. Sports College Society is
an independent and autonomous body having a Board of
Management comprising officials of the State Government.
However, this does not, in any manner, dilute the status of the
Sports Society as an independent and autonomous body.

16
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
27. The documents annexed to the writ petition and
brought on record before this Court also indicate that the
State Government releases funds on annual basis, in
accordance with the sanctioned budget under the head “31-
Grant-in-Aid - General Salary”. One of the documents filed as
Annexure-4 is the letter dated 29.04.2022 issued by the
Deputy Secretary, Sports Department to the Director, Sports
U.P., Lucknow, which indicates the release of funds for the
financial year 2022-23 for three sports colleges in the State of
U.P., namely, Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow;
Veer Bahadur Singh Sports College, Gorakhpur; and Sports
College Safai, Etawah. The said letter further indicates that an
amount of Rs.2,11,82,000/- was released for Guru Govind
Singh Sports College, Lucknow, under the head “Grant-in-Aid-
General (Salary)”. Similarly, another letter dated 20.04.2023
has been annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure-5,
which also indicates the release of fund amounting to
Rs.6,83,13,000/- to Sports College, Lucknow (Guru Govind
Singh Sports College, Lucknow).
28. The General Rules for Grants-In-Aid contained in
Financial Handbook Volume 5, Part I, provide for grant-in-aid
to a person or a body that is independent of the Government.
Such grants cannot made to an organisation established by
the Government through a resolution or an executive order, as
such organisation does not have a separate legal status of its
own and functions merely as a limb of the Government. The
relevant Rules 369-A is reproduced hereinbelow :

17
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
“ 369-A. The payment of various classes of grants to
local bodies and institutions, e.g. contributions to
hospitals and dispensaries, educational grants-in-
aid, contributions for the maintenance of roads,
etc., will be regulated, subject to the following
instructions, by the general or special orders of
Government sanctioning each class of payment.
[See also paragraph 209].
NOTES—(1) Instructions regarding maintenance of
a register of grant are contained in the annexure
referred to in Note (1) below para 209.
NOTE— (2) (a) The general principle of grant-in-
aid is that it can be given to a person or a body
which is independent of the Government. One
Department of the Government cannot make a
grant-in-aid to another Department of the
same Government. Similarly, a grant-in-aid
should not be given to an organisation set up
by the Government by a resolution or an
executive order since such an organisation
does not have a separate legal status of its
own and functions only as a limb of the
Government. Either the expenditure of such
bodies should be treated as normal
Government expenditure and provided for in
the budget as such or steps should be taken to
secure a separate corporate status for the
organisation by getting it registered under the
Registration of Societies Act, etc.
(b) It is not permissible for a grantee
institution, organisation, etc. to entrust the
implementation of the scheme or work for
which grant-in-aid is intended, to another
institution, organisation, etc. and to divert the
grant-in-aid received from Government as
assistance to the latter institution,
organisation, etc. Such diversion of grants-in-
aid, though for utilisation on the same or

18
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
similar objects, amounts to misutilisation of
the grants-in-aid. The sanctioning authority
should ensure that a specific condition is laid
down in the sanction orders prohibiting the
grantee institution from diverting the grant-in-
aid and entrusting the execution of the scheme
for which the grant is made to another
institution or organisation. In cases where
after having received the grant-in-aid from
Government, the grantee institution itself is
not in a position to execute or to complete the
assignment, it should be required to refund
forthwith to Government, the entire amount of
the grant-in-aid received by it. In order to
ensure that this condition can be enforced
through a Court of Law, in the event of its
breach, it should be incorporated in the
agreement bond executed by the grantee
institution.
Exception—If the grantee institution has branches
and their existence has been taken into account
while making the grant-in-aid; or if the grant has
been given with the specific object that the grantee
institution will divert it among other organisations
doing similar work in accordance with the rules
framed by Government, then there will be no
objection to the grant being diverted by the
grantee to its branches or such other
organisations.
Sitapur Eye Hospital and Kusht Nivaran Sangh are
the examples of such institutions. ”
29. The aforesaid Rule 369-A, contained in the Financial
Handbook Volume 5, Part I, explicitly indicates that the
financial aid provided to the petitioner college is a grant-in-aid
under the General Rules for Grant-in-Aid, which is given only

19
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
to a person or body independent of the Government, and that
such funds can be utilised only for the specified purposes.
30. In view of the aforesaid fact that the petitioner
College is run by a Society and receives grant-in-aid from the
State Government, its status is at par with that of other
educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State
Government.
31. Thus, from the records made available with the writ
petition, the contents of which have not been disputed by
learned counsel for respondent No.2, it is apparent that the
sports colleges run by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society are
controlled and managed by the Society and the sports
colleges receives grant-in-aid from the State Government to
meet its expenses. It can, therefore, be concluded that the U.P.
Sports Colleges Society is an independent and autonomous
body that controls and runs the three sports colleges in the
State of U.P. including Guru Govind Singh Sports College,
Lucknow with the aid and assistance of financial grants
received periodically from the State Government. The
teachers working in these sports colleges are the employees
of the respective colleges, who are appointed by the Principal
of the college with the approval of the Board of Management
of the U.P. Sports College Society. The salaries of these
teachers are also paid by the sports colleges out of the grants
and financial assistance received from the State Government.
32. The next question that arises is whether, in such
circumstances, it can be said that the teachers of these sports

20
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
colleges are in the pay of the State Government. This Court is
of the view that the teachers are paid salaries by the sports
colleges, which are run and managed by the Board of
Management of the Society, out of the grants received from
the State Government for the maintenance of these sports
colleges under the General Rules for Grant-In-Aid. Such grants
can be extended only to a person or body independent of the
Government and having a separate legal status. Thus, it
cannot be said that the teachers are in pay of the State
Government.
33. In the case of State of U.P. Another vs. Chandra
Shekhar Singh decided on 25.02.2022 passed in Matters
under Article 227 No.2020 of 2018 , a Single Bench of this
Court had occasion to examine the issue with reference to
Section 6 of the Act, 1976, which bars suits seeking relief in
respect of the service conditions of teachers employed in
educational institutions and the claim of a teacher for arrears
of salary against an institution receiving grant-in-aid from the
State Government. It was held by the Court that a teacher of
an educational institution is under the control of the
Committee of Management and not the State Government
and, therefore, cannot be considered a “Public Servant” within
the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976. The relevant
paragraphs 25 and 26 of Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra) are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“25. From a bare reading of the aforesaid
provisions it is clear that what is required for a

21
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
person to be called as a ''public servant' is that a
person should be in service of pay of State
Government or a local body not being a
Cantonment Board or any other Corporation
owned or controlled by the State Government. A
teacher of recognized aided educational
institution is definitely neither State Government
employee nor, employee of Local Authority. An
Educational Institution recognized under the
Intermediate Education Act is neither a
corporation nor, a company as defined in sub
clause (iii) of Claus (b) of Section 2. An educational
institution is run by a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and recognition is
accorded to the courses and certificate issued by
such educational institutions to appear in
examination to be conducted by U.P. Board of
High School and Intermediate. It is when the State
grants-in-aid to the educational institution that
for the purposes of Uttar Pradesh High Schools
and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of
Teachers and Other Employees) Act , 1971 (for
short Act, 1971 and The U.P. Junior High School
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1978 (for short Act, 1978)
respectively are made applicable to such
institutions.
26. A teacher of educational institution is on the
pay-role of committee of management and not of
the State Government. The grant that is received
by the management includes grant for salary and
that is why salary bill is cleared under the
signature of the Manager on a privately
registered society who has been recognized as
such under the Intermediate Education Act, 1971
or under the Basic Education Act, 1972 as the
case may be. Thus, a teacher of an educational
institution cannot be considered to be a public
servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act

22
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
1976 and so the first argument raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner is rejected. ”
34. The facts of the present case are almost identical to
those of Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra) with the distinction
that, in the present case, the Collage is run and controlled by
the Board of Management of the Sports Society, the members
of which are State Government officials, except for the ex-
officio Secretary, who happens to be the principal of the
College.
35. The term “local authority”, as referred to in Section
2(b) of the Act, 1976, has not been defined in the Act, 1976.
The term “local authority” has been defined under Section
4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, to mean a
Municipal Board, Nagar Palika, Nagar Mahapalika, Notified
Area Committee, Town Area Committee, Zila Parishad,
Cantonment Board, Kshettra Samiti, Gaon Sabha, or any other
authority constituted for the purpose of local self-government
or village administration, or legally entitled to or entrusted by
the State Government with the control or management of a
municipal or local fund.
36. From the definition of the term “local authority”
under Section 4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, it is
clear that the Sports Society cannot be termed a “local
authority” as referred to in Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976, as the
Sports Society is not an authority constituted for the
management of a Municipal Board or any other such local
authority.

23
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
37. Now, the next question that arises is for
consideration that whether the U.P. Sports College Society can
be regarded as a “corporation” owned or controlled by the
State Government, so as to bring the teachers working in
sports colleges within the ambit of the term “Public Servant”
under Section 2(b)(iii) of the Act, 1976.
38. The term “corporation” has been defined in Black’s
Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, as an entity (usually a business)
having authority under law to act as a single person, distinct
from the shareholders who own it and having the right to
issue stock and exist indefinitely; or a group or succession of
persons established in accordance with legal rules as a legal
or juristic person having a legal personality distinct from the
natural persons who constitute it, existing indefinitely apart
from them, and possessing the legal powers conferred upon it
by its constitution.
39. The term has also been defined in Halsbury’s Laws
of England, 4th Edition, Volume 9, paragraph 1201, to mean a
body of persons (in the case of a corporation aggregate) or an
office (in the case of a corporation sole) recognised by law as
having a personality distinct from the separate personalities
of the members of the body or from the personality of the
individual holding the office in question for the time being.
40. The issue as to whether a society registered under
the Act, 1860, is a corporation came up for consideration
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Illachi Devi (D) by LRs.
and Others v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India and

24
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
Others: (2003) 8 SCC 413 . Relying upon the judgment in
Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College,
Delhi v. State of Delhi (Now Delhi Administration and
Another), AIR 1962 SC 458 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that a society registered under the Act, 1860, is not a
corporation. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in
Illachi Devi (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:
“A Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act is not a body- corporate as is the
case in respect of a company registered under the
Companies Act. In the view of the matter, a Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act is
not a juristic person. The law for the purpose of
grant of a probate or Letter of Administration
recognises only a juristic person and not mere
conglomeration of persons or a body which does
not have any statutory recognition as a juristic
person.
It is well known that there exists certain salient
differences between a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, on the one hand, and a
company corporate, on the other, principal
amongst which is that a company is a juristic
person by virtue of being a body corporate,
whereas the society, even when it is registered, is
not possessed of these characteristics. Moreover,
a society whether registered or unregistered, may
not be prosecuted in criminal court, nor is it
capable of ownership of any property or of suing
or being sued in its own name. ”
41. In this regard, reference may also be made to the
Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporations Act,
1975, which encompasses within its ambit statutory bodies
established or constituted under any Act of Uttar Pradesh,

25
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
except those governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities
Act, 1973. The U.P. Sports Colleges Society has not been
established under any Act of the State of Uttar Pradesh and,
as such, does not have the status of a corporation governed
by the aforesaid Act.
42. Thus, in view of the above, the irrefutable
conclusion can be drawn that the U.P. Sports College Society is
an independent and autonomous body registered under the
Act, 1860, irrespective of the fact that the members of its
Board of Management are government officials and does not
fall within any of the categories mentioned in Section 2(b) of
the Act, 1976.
43. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the
teachers working in the sports colleges run by the Society are
not “Public Servants” in the service of or in the pay of the State
Government, as they are employees of the sports colleges and
are paid salaries out of the grant-in-aid received by the sports
colleges under Rule 369-A, contained in the Financial
Handbook, Volume 5, Part I. Neither the U.P. Sports College
Society nor the colleges run by it fall within the ambit of a
“local authority”, as they have not been constituted as a unit
of local self-government or village administration for the
purpose of managing municipal or local affairs, as
contemplated under Section 4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses
Act, 1904, which defines the term “local authority”. Further, the
U.P. Sports Colleges Society also does not qualify as a

26
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
“corporation”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Illachi Devi (supra).
44. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
for the respondent No.2, namely, the Full Bench Judgment in
the case of Roychan Abraham (supra), pertains to the
maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in relation to whether a private
institution imparting education performs a public duty so as
to make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The
said Full Bench Judgment deals with the maintainability of a
writ petition and is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, wherein the issue concerns
the maintainability of a claim petition before the Tribunal in
light of the definition of the term “Public Servant” under
Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976. The jurisdiction of a statutory
tribunal cannot be enlarged merely on grounds of
convenience, equity, or the public character of the employer.
Its jurisdiction must be traceable to the express provisions of
the enactment under which it has been constituted. We could
not find any provision in the Act, 1976 that would remotely
suggest that teachers employed in colleges run and
administered by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society are public
servants as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the view that the teachers of the sports colleges run by the
U.P. Sports Colleges Society are not public servant as defined

27
WRIA No. - 3923 of 2026
under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976, and, as such, the claim
petition filed before the Tribunal is not maintainable.
46. Accordingly, the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by
the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.281 of 2025 is set aside and
the proceedings pending in Claim Petition No.281 of 2025 are
also quashed. It is left open to respondent No.2 to agitate his
grievance arising out of the orders dated 17.09.2024,
19.11.204 and 05.12.2024 regarding re-fixation of pay and
recovery before any other appropriate forum, including by
filing a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
47. The writ petition stands allowed . There shall be no
order as to costs.
(Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.) (Alok Mathur, J.)
October 28, 2026
Shubhankar
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHANKAR THAKUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench