Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 336 (UTT)

Balbir Singh Kunwar v. State of Uttarakhand

2012-06-28

TARUN AGARWALA

body2012
JUDGMENT : The petitioner is working in the Irrigation Deptt. in Tehri since 1968 in a work charge establishment. On 7th February, 1981, the erstwhile State of U.P. issued a Government Order indicating therein that work charge employees who have worked for three years or more should be regularized. Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner submitted a series of representations with regard to the regularization of his services on the post of Driller. These representations fell on deaf ears and, consequently, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Lucknow being Adjudication Case No. 72 of 1993. The terms of the reference order was; “Whether the workers as mentioned in the schedule were entitled to be regularized on the post shown in the schedule.” The Labour Court gave an award directing that the employers were not justified in not regularizing the services of the petitioner and, consequently, directed the State Govt. to take steps to regularize the services of the petitioner on the basis of seniority. Based on the said award, the respondents implemented the said award and issued an order dated 21st May, 1998 regularizing the services of the petitioner on the post of Mate in the pay scale of 775-1040. The petitioner was not happy with this regularization as he had always contended that he is entitled to be regularized on the post of Driller, Grade-1 which was in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. Thereafter, the petitioner made a fresh representation to the authority to rectify the defect in the regularization order which representation fell on deaf ears and, accordingly, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was transferred to this Court upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30th March, 2006 directing the authority to decide the representation. The said representation was rejected by an order dated 19.04.2007 when contempt proceedings were initiated against the authority in which the respondents submitted that the matter has been referred to the State Govt. for appropriate orders. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents has filed the present writ petition. The said representation was rejected by an order dated 19.04.2007 when contempt proceedings were initiated against the authority in which the respondents submitted that the matter has been referred to the State Govt. for appropriate orders. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents has filed the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have filed a short counter affidavit indicating that the petitioner has now been regularized in the regular establishment as a Driller by an office memorandum 30th January, 2001 and, consequently, the grievance of the petitioner has been set at rest. The respondents submitted that the writ petition should now be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the petitioner has been ventilating his grievance with regard to his regularization for the last 20 years. There is an award of the Labour Court, Lucknow holding that the petitioner is liable to be given regularization on the post of Driller, Grade-1. This award has not been questioned by the respondents and, in fact, have been implemented but instead of regularizing the petitioner on the post of Driller, Grade-1, the respondents have regularized the petitioner on the post of Mate which is a lower post. The fact that the petitioner has been regularized on a lower post and not on the post as directed by the Labour Court is admitted. No justification has been shown as to why the respondents could not regularize the petitioner on the post of Driller, Grade-1. Eventually, the respondents have now regularized the petitioner on the post of Driller w.e.f. 30th January, 2009 whereas the petitioner ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 21.05.1998, namely, the date when the respondents issued an order for regularizing the petitioner on the post of Mate. Since no explanation has been given by the respondents justifying their stand, it is apparently clear that the respondents are liable to regularize the petitioner on the post of Driller, Grade-1 pursuant to the award of the Labour Court. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner on the post of Driller, Grade-1 w.e.f. 21/05/1998, i.e., the date when the petitioner was regularized on the post of Mate. Arrear of wages, etc. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner on the post of Driller, Grade-1 w.e.f. 21/05/1998, i.e., the date when the petitioner was regularized on the post of Mate. Arrear of wages, etc. shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order.