Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 74 (UTT)

DHARAM CHAND ARORA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2015-02-24

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner was an employee in the Department of Agriculture in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1965 he was working at Chamoli and was transferred to Nainital but according to the petitioner he was not given joining at Nainital. Aggrieved the petitioner gave his resignation on 20.11.1965 stating that in spite of his transfer he is not being relieved from Chamoli nor is he being given joining at Nainital, and therefore, he now resigns and his resignation be accepted. Nothing happened on his resignation letter and thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition, in the year 1997 i.e. often more than 30 years before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Writ Petition No. 33320 of 1997, which was disposed of by passing following order:- “The petitioner has sought only one relief in the writ petition for taking final decision in respect of his conditional resignation dated 20.11.1965 and to take final decision in respect of his representation and reminder dated 27.01.1997. If no order has been passed on the said resignation, the respondents would pass appropriate orders in the said matter expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order and shall communicate the same to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations this writ petition is finally disposed of.” 2. Consequently, an order has been passed by the Additional Director, Agriculture (Administration), Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow on 03.11.1998 by which it has been stated that the petitioner has been absent from duties since 1965 and therefore his services have been terminated. Against the said termination order, the petitioner filed an appeal before The Joint Secretary, Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh which was also dismissed on 29.06.2002. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. This writ petition was dismissed earlier on 15.07.2008 for non prosecution, which was restored on 30.09.2010. Thereafter, again on 05.12.2012, the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution. The applicant/petitioner filed the restoration application along with delay condonation application. In the interest of justice, the delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. The restoration application is also allowed. Let the petition be restored to its original number. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties today itself. 5. The applicant/petitioner filed the restoration application along with delay condonation application. In the interest of justice, the delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. The restoration application is also allowed. Let the petition be restored to its original number. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties today itself. 5. Since the petitioner was the employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1965 when the State of Uttarakhand was not in existence and secondly the two orders (referred above) were passed by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. Now in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttarakhand & another Vs Umakant Joshi reported in (2012) 11 SCC 164 wherein on similar fact the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that filing of such petitions where orders have been passed by authority in U.P. or the relief being claimed by the Uttar Pradesh, it is not proper to file petition in the Uttarakhand High Court as it lacking jurisdiction in this matter. A reference of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court (referred above) is made in the following paragraphs of the said judgment:- “27. Therefore, the High Court of Uttarakhand, which too came into existence with effect from 9.11.2000 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 for issue of a mandamus to the State Government to promote him to Class-I post with effect from 16.11.1989, more so because the issues raised in the writ petition involved examination of the legality of the decision taken by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to promote Shri R.K. Khare with effect from 16.11.1989 and other officers, who were promoted to Class-I post vide order dated 22.01.2001 with retrospective effect. 28. It appears to us that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand and the Director of Industries did not draw the attention of the High Court that it was not competent to issue direction for promotion of respondent No.1 with effect from a date prior to formation of the new State, and that too, without hearing the State of Uttar Pradesh and this is the reason why the High Court did not examine the issue of its jurisdiction to entertain the prayer made by respondent No.1. 29. 29. In view of the above, we hold that the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 in 2008 in the Uttarakhand High Court claiming retrospective promotion to Class-I post with effect from 16.11.1989 was misconceived and the High Court committed jurisdictional error by issuing direction for his promotion to the post of General Manager with effect from 16.11.1989 and for consideration of his case for promotion to the higher posts with effect from the date of promotion of his so called juniors.” 6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed as this Court does not have a territorial jurisdiction in the matter.