Retired Sports College Teacher’s Pay-Recovery Claim Cannot Go Before UP Tribunal: Allahabad HC Says Society-Run College Teachers Aren’t “Public Servants”

Respondent No. 2 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Football) at a sports college by its Principal, with approval of the Board of Management of the U.P. Sports Colleges Society. After serving at Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow, he retired in 2023.

Following a revision of his pay and recovery orders, he filed a claim petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal seeking, among other reliefs, revised grade pay and refund of deductions.

The petitioner objected that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because respondent No. 2 was not a “public servant” under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. The Tribunal rejected that objection; the petitioner challenged that order in this writ petition.

Section 2(b) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 defines a “public servant” as a person in the service of or in the pay of the State Government, a local authority (other than a Cantonment Board), or a qualifying corporation owned or controlled by the State; Section 2(bb) defines a “service matter” as a matter relating to the conditions of service of a public servant.

Under Section 4(25) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, a local authority is an entity of the specified local-government or local-administration character.

Rule 369-A of the Financial Handbook, Volume 5, Part I, recognises grants-in-aid to independent persons or bodies.

M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, establishes that incorrect pay fixation is a continuing wrong, with a recurring cause of action.

State of U.P. v. Chandra Shekhar Singh was relied on for the proposition that a teacher employed and paid by a grant-aided institution is not, for that reason alone, a public servant under Section 2(b).

Illachi Devi v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India, (2003) 8 SCC 413, holds that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not a body corporate.

The Court held that pay fixation and its effect on pension concern service conditions, and that the continuing-wrong principle applies to a pensioner whose pension is affected by incorrect pay fixation; the objection that the claim was not a “service matter” therefore failed.

However, respondent No. 2 was appointed by the College Principal with the Society’s approval, and the Society’s Board controlled appointments and service matters. The colleges were run by the Society, which received grants-in-aid; the teachers were employees of the colleges and their salaries were paid from those grants, not by the State Government.

The Society was neither a local authority nor a corporation within Section 2(b), and government officials’ membership of its Board did not alter its independent status as a registered society.

The Court accordingly distinguished Roychan Abraham, which concerned the availability of writ jurisdiction, not the statutory limits of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Tribunal’s order dated 4 September 2025 was set aside and the claim-petition proceedings were quashed.

Respondent No. 2 was left free to pursue an appropriate remedy before another forum, including under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.