Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 730 (UTT)

J. L. KHATRI v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2013-11-20

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Petitioner was appointed as untrained Pharmacist in the Jail Department on 10.3.1969; vide order dated 19.5.1994, petitioner was granted time scale with effect from 1.1.1986; vide order dated 27.2.1996, the services of the petitioner along with others were regularized. Services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 18.6.1994 on the post of trained Pharmacist after granting relaxation/exemption from the qualification. Petitioner was granted time scale on completion of 16 years and 19 years of service from the date of his initial appointment. 2. After the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, vide order dated 4.2.2008, grant of time scale was recalled and vide consequential order dated 12.5.2008, time scale was granted from the date of regularization i.e. 18.6.1994. It was further directed that excess payment made to the petitioner should be recovered from the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, and have carefully perused the record. 4. The question which requires consideration by this Court is as to whether time scale should be granted to petitioner from the date of his initial appointment or from the date of regularization of the service? 5. There is no dispute to the point that if service of an employee is regularized then for the purpose of pensionary benefit, his entire service shall be reckoned. If it is so, then why not service rendered by petitioner prior to the regularization of the service be not counted for the purpose of grant of time pay scale. Moreover, exemption and relaxation was granted by the State of Uttar Pradesh way back in the year 1996 with effect from 18.6.1994. Time scale were granted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. As held hereinbefore, for the purpose of grant of time scale, service should be reckoned from very inception, if employee has already been absorbed and regularized. Therefore, decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh granting time scale to petitioner cannot be faulted with. 7. The argument of Mr. Time scale were granted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. As held hereinbefore, for the purpose of grant of time scale, service should be reckoned from very inception, if employee has already been absorbed and regularized. Therefore, decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh granting time scale to petitioner cannot be faulted with. 7. The argument of Mr. Paresh Tripathi that time scale was granted to the petitioner in the year 1994, when petitioner was not qualified for the post of trained Pharmacist, however, exemption and relaxation was granted in the year 1996, therefore, grant of time scale in 1994 was bad in law, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that petitioner was regularized on the post of trained Pharmacist after granting exception/relaxation in the qualification. 8. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned orders dated 4.2.2008 and 12.5.2008, annexure nos. 22 and 26 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed.