JUDGMENT : Intervention application filed by the intervener is allowed. Intervener is permitted to argue the case. 2. Heard Shri Mahesh Chandra Pant, petitioner in person in Writ Petition No. 167 of 2014 and Shri Amar Shukla, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 166 of 2014, Shri B.S.Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Shri Kartikeya Hari Gupta, Advocate, for the Intervener. 3. These two writ petitions have been filed for identical reliefs. Prayer (i) is for direction to the respondents 1 to 15, i.e. the State Governments and District Magistrate of all the Districts to ensure that strike of ministerial staffs is called of. Prayer (ii) is for direction to these respondents to take action against striking ministerial staffs. 4. In the State of Uttarakhand, the ministerial cadre employees are Government servant. They are paid salary from the public ex-checker. Respondent no. 16 is Uttarakhand Federation of Ministerial Services, which is said to be federation of ministerial employees. Intervener, the Uttarakhand Collectorate Ministerial Karmchari Sangh is said to be recognised by the State Government and is representing all the ministerial staffs working in the Collectorate in all the districts of the State of Uttarakhand. These unions raised certain demands before the State Government regarding the service conditions of their members. When those demands were not met, they went on strike for indefinite period. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that these employees are on continuous strike for last more than fifty days. Since, long strike was causing great hardships to public in general, these two petitions have been filed as Public Interest Litigations. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the employees are Government servant and therefore, the same is illegal. It is submitted that due to this illegal strike of the employees, many students could not get domicile certificates, permanent resident certificates, caste certificates etc. resulting which they are deprived of their admissions in the educational institutions of no fault of their. Not only this, the students/unemployed youths are being deprived of from getting employment in Army, BSF and SSB etc. as these organisations are not permitting the candidates to appear in physical test and written examinations without domicile certificates, permanent resident certificates and caste certificates. Not only this, the students/unemployed youths are being deprived of from getting employment in Army, BSF and SSB etc. as these organisations are not permitting the candidates to appear in physical test and written examinations without domicile certificates, permanent resident certificates and caste certificates. Even they are unable to apply for some posts where these certificates are asked for at the time of filling up Application Form. It is also contended that due to this strike public in general is also facing great hardship as their works are held up. 6. Entire ministerial staffs in the State are on strike. We feel that the State is hesitant to take action against the striking employees. Therefore, we have taken up this matter. There is no statutory provision empowering the employees to go on strike. There is prohibition to go on strike under the Uttarakhand Government Servants Conduct Rules, 2002. Rule 22 provides that “no Government servant shall engage himself in strike or in incitements thereto or in similar activities.” Explanation to the said provision explains the term ‘similar activities’. It states that “for the purpose of this rule, the expression ‘similar activities’ shall be deemed to include the absence from work or neglect of duties without permission and with the object of compelling something to be done by his superior officers or the Government or any demonstrative fast usually called “hunger strike” for similar purposes. Rule 22-A provides that “no Government servant shall conduct any procession or hold or address any meeting in any part of any open ground adjoining any Government Office or inside any Office premises — (a) during office hours on any working day; and (b) outside office hours or on holidays, save with the prior permission of the head of the Department or head of office, as the case may be.” 7. Apart from statutory rights, Government employees cannot claim that they can take the society at ransom by going on strike. Even if there is injustice to some extent, as presumed by such employees, in a democratic welfare State, they have to resort to the machinery provided under different statutory provisions for redressal of their grievances. Strike, as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total maladministration. Strike affects the society as a whole and particularly when two lakh employees go on strike enmasse, the entire administration comes to a grinding halt. Strike, as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos and total maladministration. Strike affects the society as a whole and particularly when two lakh employees go on strike enmasse, the entire administration comes to a grinding halt. In the case of strike by a teacher, entire educational system suffers; many students are prevented from appearing in their exams which ultimately affect their whole career. In case of strike by Doctors, innocent patients suffer; in case of strike by employees of transport services, entire movement of the society comes to a stand still; business is adversely affected and number of persons find it difficult to attend to their work, to move from one place to another or one city to another. On occasions, public properties are destroyed or damaged and finally this creates bitterness among public against those who are on strike. Whenever chakkajam is done due to some death in a hospital, nobody realises that for hours a patient is held up on a road due to the chakkajam, resulting his death. Everybody should ask a question to himself, whether such chakkajam is justified. We do not realize the loss which our nation suffers due to strike. We have been informed by the counsel that after creation of the State of Uttarakhand, in last 14 years about three years’ period went waste due to strikes. 8. Law on this subject is well settled and it has been repeatedly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. In Kameshwar Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and another [(1962) Suppl. 3 SCR 369] Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the rule in so far as it prohibited strikes was valid since there is no fundamental right to resort to strike. In All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal & others [ (1962) 3 SCR 269 ], Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that even very liberal interpretation of sub-clause (C) of clause (1) of Article 19 cannot lead to the conclusion that trade unions have a guaranteed right to an effective collective bargaining or to strike, either as part of collective bargaining or otherwise. Further, in Ex-Capt. Further, in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Another, [ (2003) 2 SCC 45 ], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott and even they cannot go on a token strike. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that for just or unjust cause, strike cannot be justified in the present-day situation. Take strike in any field, it can be easily realised that the weapon does more harm than any justice. Sufferer is the society — public at large. 9. In this matter on 29.10.2014, the following order was passed by this Court: “It has been contended that Ministerial staff working in the entire State are on strike for the last more than one month. It has further been contended that no sincere efforts have been made by the State Government for defusing such strike. Whereas one petitioner Mahesh Chandra Pant is practicing Advocate of this Court, the another petitioner Anand Singh Mer is resident of Nainital and is law graduate. Both do not have any personal interest in the same. Both appear to be public spirited persons. It has been pointed out by the petitioners that due to the strike of Ministerial staff, the public at large is suffering a lot. They informed the Court that a few days ago, there was recruitment in the Army, BSF and SSB in different districts of Uttarakhand, but due to the strike of Ministerial staff, permanent resident certificate could not be supplied to all the applicants and they were deprived of their right to appear in the selection process. Similarly, it has also been pointed out that due to illegal strike of the employees of Ministerial cadre of State of Uttarakhand, number of students could not get their domicile certificates, caste certificates resulting which, they were deprived of getting admission in the Educational Institutions. We are surprised as to why sincere efforts have not been taken by the State Government to diffuse the crisis. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the State Government is negotiating with the leaders of the striking employees and State Government is hopeful that the strike shall be called out. He submits that the Chief Minister has also made it clear that striking staff should first join the duty and only thereafter their genuine demands shall be considered. V.B.S. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the State Government is negotiating with the leaders of the striking employees and State Government is hopeful that the strike shall be called out. He submits that the Chief Minister has also made it clear that striking staff should first join the duty and only thereafter their genuine demands shall be considered. He also submits that even small work like mutation etc., are not being done by the employees. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Mahesh Chandra Pant, petitioner in person as well as by Mr. Amar Shukla, Advocate for another petitioner. We find that this is a serious matter and State Government should take strike of the Ministerial staff very seriously. We request the Chief Secretary to take appropriate action against the striking staff. We also request that unless and until the striking staff return to their work, no salary shall be paid to them. Payment of salary shall be considered only after the striking staff calls off their strike. We also direct the State Government to consider for alternative arrangement. In case strike is not called off, the State Government is requested to consider invoking provisions of Uttar Pradesh Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1966 as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand.” 10. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is empowered to exercise its extra- ordinary jurisdiction to meet unprecedented extra-ordinary situation having no parallel. It is equally true that extra-ordinary powers are required to be sparingly used. The facts of the present case reveal that this is most extra-ordinary case, which call for interference by the High Court. 11. Therefore, in view of above discussion, in furtherance of the order passed on 29.10.2014, the following directions are also being issued: (1). We direct the respondents not to permit the strike any further. If the strike is not called off immediately, we direct the respondents to use necessary force against those employees, who prevent others from coming to work place or who are found engaged in the strike. They be dealt with in accordance with law. (2). We further direct the respondent-authorities to provide security to the employees, who are interested in returning to their work. If some employees are found preventing other employees from coming to work place, in such situation, necessary force be used and legal action be taken. They be dealt with in accordance with law. (2). We further direct the respondent-authorities to provide security to the employees, who are interested in returning to their work. If some employees are found preventing other employees from coming to work place, in such situation, necessary force be used and legal action be taken. If required, FIR be registered against such employees. (3). Since the strike is continuing for last more than fifty days, in such circumstances, we direct the respondent authorities to give three days’ ultimatum to striking employees to return to their duties and in case they do not return to work in, then make alternative arrangement and also take steps for removing them from service, but by following due process of law. (4). In case the strike is called off within a period of three days and all the employees resume their duties, we request the State Government to consider the employees’ request for payment of salary in accordance with law. Genuine demands of the employees may also be considered in a lawful manner. 12. Writ Petitions (PIL) are, accordingly, disposed of. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Collecterate Ministerial Karmchari Sangh (the intervener) informed the Court that employees are calling off the strike right now. 14. We appreciate the petitioners, who brought these PILs before us.