Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 322 (UTT)

FARAHAT SAHID v. UTTARAKHAND GOVERNMENT

2013-06-14

Sudhanshu Dhulia

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Gopal Dutt Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhayay, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. According to the petitioner, he has technical knowledge of operating the Printing Press Offset Machine. In response to an advertisement dated 26.02.2003 published by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pithoragarh/respondent no.2, the petitioner applied for the post of Offset Printer Operator. The advertisement states that initially for the first year, the incumbent would be given a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and after one year of satisfactory service, the regular salary, which is approved by the Government, would be given. 3. The petitioner underwent a selection process and thereafter appointed as Offset Press Operator by the Manager of the District Central Printing Press Panchayat, Pithoragarh / respondent no.3. 4. According to the petitioner, he continued to work as Offset Press Operator for a period of six years and, inspite of his repeated requests, he has not been given regular salary and, on his persistent requests for granting regular salary, his services were terminated without assigning any reason vide impugned order dated 02.03.2009. This Court has perused the impugned order and feels that it does not assign any reason for terminating the services of the petitioner. The impugned order only says that the appointment of the petitioner was totally temporary in nature and his service was not required any more. 5. In the counter affidavit, one of the stands taken by the Government is that the department where the petitioner is working is not an instrumentality of the State and, moreover, the appointment of the petitioner was temporary in nature. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the submission of the respondents cannot be accepted for the reasons that the advertisement was published by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pithoragarh and the department where the petitioner is working is under the control and supervision of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, therefore, the department where the petitioner is working is an instrumentality of the State. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Dehradun to decide the representation of the petitioner and, in case he comes to conclusion that the services of the petitioner can be absorbed and his services are required in view of the fact that he has already put in six years of service, he may consider the appointment of the petitioner on the post on which he is working and, accordingly, the petitioner shall also be reinstated in service on the post on which he had earlier worked. In case, the Secretary, Panchayat Raj comes to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner cannot be absorbed in the office of District Panchayat Raj, Pithoragarh, the petitioner shall be adjusted in any other District or in any other suitable place. Needful be done within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.