Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 106 (UTT)

Ram Nath Aswal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-03

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. The petitioners impugn the order passed dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, in Claim Petition No. 57 of 2010, Ram Nath Aswal vs. State of Uttarakhand and another. The petitioners have also sought a direction to treat the initial date of appointment of the petitioners as indicated in their original appointment/ engagement letters of 2001 on their respective trades of radio operator, mechanic and driver etc. for all purposes and to give them all the service benefits including seniority, promotion etc. from the said date. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioners is as follows:- Petitioners were appointed on the strength of an advertisement issued in the year 2001, by which applications were invited for eligible and interested ex-servicemen against various posts in all the thirteen districts of the State of Uttarakhand. It is the case of the petitioners that they underwent the examination; it is not a back door exercise; they worked for various years and in the year 2008 they came to be regularized. They were not given seniority from the year 2001 in which they had successfully participated in the examination and they finally approached the Public Service Tribunal and the Tribunal has partly allowed the application. But, in so far as, this case is concerned, they are aggrieved by that portion of the order of the Tribunal by which the Tribunal finds that their claim for seniority with reference to the original date on which they were appointed on contractual basis in untenable. Finding of the Tribunal is based on the fact that the petitioners were regularized in terms of the Government Order dated 25.07.2008. Under the terms of the said Government Order, the persons who are regularized would get seniority from the date of the regularization. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this is not a back door entry; they have been working from 2001 and they were qualified; and they are ex-servicemen. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the seniority and they were continuously officiating on the said post. 4. We are not impressed by the said submission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this is not a back door entry; they have been working from 2001 and they were qualified; and they are ex-servicemen. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the seniority and they were continuously officiating on the said post. 4. We are not impressed by the said submission. We are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim for seniority is liable to be turned down for the reason that the petitioners were regularized in terms of the order dated 25.07.2008 and the said order prescribed that the seniority will flow from the date on which they were regularized. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the order dated 25.7.2008, which provides for the seniority to be reckoned from the date on which they were regularized. Having got regularized in terms of the Government Order, it is not open to the petitioners to disown that part of the Government Order, which they find inconvenient. It is more important to note that the petitioners have not even chosen to challenge that portion of the Government Order which provide for the said contingencies. In such circumstances, there is no scope for invoking the theory of officiating appointment, in so far as their title to regular appointment flows from the terms of the Government Order and having taken benefit out of that order, it is not open for the petitioners to extricate themselves from the effect of the said Government Order particularly when they have not even chosen to challenge the said order. 5. There is no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.