Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 182 (UTT)

NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

2015-03-27

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the award dated 23.08.2003, passed by Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani. 2. Undisputedly, respondent no.2 was appointed as Toll Moharrir/ Peon on 11.11.1962 in the petitioner Nagar Palika. Vide order dated 13.11.1980, respondent no. 2 was directed to discharge the duties of Tax Inspector as well; by an order dated 13.07.1981, respondent no.2 was directed to assist the then Tax Inspector in discharging his volume of work; vide orders dated 18.07.1981, order dated 13.11.1980 and order dated 16.07.1981 were recalled; respondent no. 2 was reverted to his original post i.e. Toll Moharrir; post of Tax Inspector in the Municipality was declared Centralized Service on 27.09.1984. 3. Learned Tribunal in the impugned award has observed that since respondent no.2 was asked to discharge the duties of Tax Inspector, therefore, he should be paid salary of the Tax Inspector and should be given designation and pay-scale of the Tax Inspector. 4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that learned Tribunal has never set aside the order dated 18.07.1981, whereby petitioner was reverted back to his original post i.e. Toll Moharrir. 2 5. This Court in Special Appeal No. 191 of 2010, State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Sri Pratap Singh Bhauriyal decided on 26.10.2010, has held as under:- “As noted by the learned Single Judge while rendering impugned judgment, the sources of recruitment for the posts of Revenue Tax Inspector are direct recruitment, promotion and deputation. In terms of the mandate contained in the said Rules, only a person already working in a centralised post governed by the said Rules can be promoted to a post available in centralised posts. The respondent never worked in any centralised post. He, therefore, could not be promoted to the post of Revenue Tax Inspector. Then again in terms of the mandate of the said Rules, only an officer serving under the Government could be deputed as Revenue Tax Inspector. Respondent never served under the Government. He, therefore, in terms of the Rules could not be deputed as Revenue Tax Inspector. As yet no step has been taken to effect direct recruitment to fill-up the post, which was sanctioned in 2002. Merely because the respondent worked in the circumstance as above since 1987 as Revenue Tax Inspector, he could not be accorded the status of Revenue Tax Inspector contrary to statutory Rules.” 6. As yet no step has been taken to effect direct recruitment to fill-up the post, which was sanctioned in 2002. Merely because the respondent worked in the circumstance as above since 1987 as Revenue Tax Inspector, he could not be accorded the status of Revenue Tax Inspector contrary to statutory Rules.” 6. This case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.10.2010, rendered in Special Appeal No. 191 of 2010, therefore, present petition is allowed. Impugned award is hereby quashed. 7. No order as to costs.