Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 158 (UTT)

DIWAKAR PRASAD PUROHIT v. RAGHAV LANGAR

2015-03-18

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Mr. Raghav Langar and Mr. Y.S. Rawat, OP Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, are present in person before this Court in compliance of the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by this Court. 2. Writ Petition No. 126 of 2003 (S/S) was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated 08.06.2005, which reads as under :- “It is not denied by the respondents that the petitioners had been working as Daily Wager since 1987 and 1995 continuously. It has also not been disputed after creation of new District, Rudraprayag in the year 1998, the petitioners have been working as Daily Wager employees. In view of the facts stated above in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit, I come to the conclusion that the service of the petitioners are not to be regularized for want of regular vacancy. I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition finally with a direction that the respondents shall regularize the service of the petitioners as and when the vacancy arises.” 3. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel appearing for the OP No. 2, submits that the then Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Rudraprayag, vide letter dated 22.11.2006, Annexure No.2 to the affidavit of Mr. Y.S. Rawat, has written to the Secretary, Panchayat Raj that although learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to direct that as and when vacancies arise, petitioners shall be regularized, however, such direction of learned Single Judge of this Court is contrary to the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , therefore, order of the learned Single Judge cannot be given effect to. 4. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for OP No. 2, further contends that vide order dated 09.01.2014, issued by the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Zila Panchayat was directed to take work only on the contract basis that too through UPNL, therefore, petitioners could not be regularized. 5. 4. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for OP No. 2, further contends that vide order dated 09.01.2014, issued by the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Zila Panchayat was directed to take work only on the contract basis that too through UPNL, therefore, petitioners could not be regularized. 5. Paragraph No. 54 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra) reads as under :- “It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we 3 have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” 6. Bare perusal of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court would demonstrate that Hon’ble Apex Court has held that all earlier decisions contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) shall not be treated as precedent. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) nowhere says that earlier judgments stand set aside and shall not be given effect to in favour of the petitioners, in whose favour judgments were passed. Therefore, stand of the then Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Rurdraprayag, as shown in the letter dated 22.11.2006, does not sustain in the eyes of law. 7. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for OP No.1 and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for OP No. 2, in all fairness, stated that now elected Chairman is working in Zila Panchayat, Rudraprayag, therefore, present elected Chairman as well as Upper Mukhya Zila Adhikari shall examine the issue afresh and, if vacancies are available, petitioners shall be allowed to work against those vacancies and order dated 09.01.2014 passed by the State Government shall not be given effect to; and if vacant sanctioned posts are available, petitioners shall be given regularization forthwith and entire exercise shall be completed preferably within six months from today. 8. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for OP No.1, further contends that if such a suggestion is received by the State Government, the State Government shall not come into the way of regularizing the petitioners if sanctioned posts are available and shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contempt applicant, in view of the statements made by Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for OP No. 2 and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for OP No. 1, seeks permission to withdraw this contempt application with liberty to file fresh, if need be, after six months. 10. Order accordingly.