Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 307 (UTT)

Om Prakash Kotnala v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-04

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Appeal is lodged against the judgment of learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the basis of it being hopelessly barred by limitation. 2. Briefly put, the case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge, is as follows: Petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers in C.T. Grade between 1989 to 1991. It is their case that actually C.T. Grade has been declared as dying cadre on the basis of Government Order dated 19.02.1991, hence, their initial appointment was wrong and they were liable to be appointed as L.T. Grade. They also wanted to be given consequential benefits in service. Learned Single Judge took the view that grievance is agitated after more than 25 years and there is long delay. There is no reason explaining the delay. The writ petition was, hence, dismissed. 3. In fact, case of the appellants was that similarly situated persons have been given some relief in Writ Petition No.734 (S/S) of 2015 and connected cases. In fact, appeals were carried by the said writ petitioners against the denial of the relief relating to issue of seniority. Said appeals have been dismissed. 4. The relief sought in the writ petition, are as follows:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 to pass appropriate order in regard to fixation of salary including the length of service from the initial appointment in terms of the order dated 01.12.2006 of the Hon’ble High Court passed in Writ Petition (MB) No.932 of 2005, as also the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexures 4 & 6 to the writ petition) (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 to provide all benefit to the petitioners like the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 932 (M/B) of 2005 and Writ Petition No.1666 (S/S) of 2007 Thakur Singh Rawat & others vs. State & others dated 01.12.2006 and 15.12.2010 respectively. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to fix the seniority of the petitioner since 31.03.1989 and also provide him all the benefits of LT grade teacher since date of his initial appointment, including arrears of salary.” 5. We heard Mr. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to fix the seniority of the petitioner since 31.03.1989 and also provide him all the benefits of LT grade teacher since date of his initial appointment, including arrears of salary.” 5. We heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 6. Learned Brief Holder does not object to the relief as granted in the judgment in Writ Petition No.734 (S/S) of 2015 and other connected cases being granted. 7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. Judgment of learned Single Judge is modified. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of Writ Petition No.734 (S/S) of 2015 and connected cases directing that the appellants will be given same relief as was granted in Writ Petition No.734 (S/S) of 2015 and connected cases. In all other respects, the relief is refused.