Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 330 (UTT)

Bikram Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-06-30

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. CLMA No. 3414 of 2015 1. I have carefully perused the accompanying affidavit and I am satisfied that delay of 696 days in moving the restoration application has been properly explained. Moreover, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no serious objection if delay of 696 days in moving the restoration application is condoned. Therefore Delay Condonation Application (CLMA) No. 3414 of 2015 is allowed. Delay in moving restoration application is condoned. MCC No. 207 of 2015 2. Writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 01.04.2013. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no serious objection, if order dated 01.04.2013 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. Restoration Application (MCC) No. 2007 of 2015 is allowed. Order dated 01.04.2013 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. 3. With the consent of Mr. Amar Shukla and Ms. Lata Negi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Addl. C.S.C. appearing for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, present petition is taken up for final hearing. 4. Present petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.12.1985, on the post of Junior Clerk and to pay salary for the period w.e.f. 01.03.1987 to 11.04.1989. 5. 4. Present petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.12.1985, on the post of Junior Clerk and to pay salary for the period w.e.f. 01.03.1987 to 11.04.1989. 5. Undisputedly, vide appointment order/letter dated 21.12.1985, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk, purely on temporary basis in the Office of Regulated area, Kotdwar with the stipulation that his services can be terminated at any time without any prior notice; vide gazette notification dated 12.11.1986, Annexure No. A-3, Regulated Area Kotdwar was dissolved; vide order dated 30.04.1987, the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of dissolution of Regulated area; petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 8904 of 1987 before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the termination order dated 30.04.1987; the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, vide interim order dated 08.02.1989, was pleased to direct the Commissioner Garhwal Division, Pauri Garhwal to appoint the petitioner as Clerk on the post which is vacant in his Division within a period of one month from the date certified copy of the order is produced before him, in view of the fact that Smt. Tara Joshi, who was junior to the petitioner in the merit list was allowed to work; in compliance of the interim order dated 08.02.1989 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 8904 of 1987, the petitioner was given appointment in the Office of Regulated area Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 11.04.1989; Writ Petition No. 8904 of 1987 was transferred to this Court after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand and was renumbered as Writ Petition No. 5615 (S/S) of 2001; on 28.10.2006, Writ Petition No. 5615 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No. 8904 of 1987) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner; vide order dated 28.10.2006, interim order dated 08.02.1989 was also vacated. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 5615 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No. 8904 of 1987) vide order dated 28.10.2006 and vacation of the interim order dated 08.02.1989, termination order dated 30.04.1989 which was a subject matter of that writ petition stood revived. 7. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 5615 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No. 8904 of 1987) vide order dated 28.10.2006 and vacation of the interim order dated 08.02.1989, termination order dated 30.04.1989 which was a subject matter of that writ petition stood revived. 7. Undisputedly, order dated 30.04.1987 has not been recalled/revoked or quashed/set aside by any competent Forum and Authority, as yet, therefore, petitioner shall be deemed out of service. Consequently, relief claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition to give him seniority on the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 24.12.1985 and to pay him salary for the period after the termination order dated 30.04.1987, cannot be granted. Moreover, order dated 30.04.1987, terminating his services has not been challenged in the present petition. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Before parting with the judgment, it is directed that if the petitioner was allowed to work after the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 5615 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No. 8904 of 1987) as claimed by Mr. Amar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, a vigilance inquiry shall be held against the officers/officials concerned and whosoever is found guilty for allowing the petitioner to continue in service after the dismissal of the writ petition shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 8. Let copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand for information and compliance.